Again, A Defense of Pickup Artistry (PUA)

My buddy, Dagonet, recently wrote a superb blog post where he defends pickup artists (PUA). One of his many good points is that there is an almost visceral negative reaction to the term “PUA”. That reaction is all over the Internet. There are Tweets, blog posts, and entire websites that excoriate pickup artists for being “man-boys”, “losers”, and “selfish assholes” who aren’t thinking of society’s greater good. The following Tweet shows it quite well:

The Tweet links to a thoughtful blog post about moral ambivalence. The shaming language in the Tweet is standard stuff and generally used when PUA causes emotional distress that can’t be resolved by applying even a small amount of logic and reason. I responded to that Tweet with a Tweet of my own:

A collection of Tweets then cascaded down with fairly good points being raised by a number of Tweeters. The biggest objection to PUA was that men were not considering how their individual actions impact our culture at large. Such objections are a couple of decades too late and are no longer relevant. We are well past what “should” be and firmly in the land of socio-sexual reality.

Twitter is good for getting to the heart of the matter. It really doesn’t matter how PUAs are created. Learning and practicing PUA is a logical and rational response to the current cultural conditions regarding how men and women interact in a socio-sexual context. Through the various waves of feminism, women have been effectively released from the social contract between the two sexes. Until the Internet, most men were unaware that they were upholding one part of a contract and women had fled their part of the contract. Now, men know better. I’ve written about that previously and the comments on that blog post are excellent.

So men responded, almost predictably. In order to meet their socio-sexual goals, men simply applied their brain power to the problem of understanding how women respond to predictable stimulus vis-a-vis sexual attraction. Dagonet pointed this out clearly in his blog post:

The natural, and rational, reaction to this situation is to learn game. To become a “pickup artist.” What this really means– despite the negative connotation– is that a man takes active control of his sex life and decides to start maximizing the behaviors that garner positive reactions from women, and minimizing the negative. He also might actually discover new abilities, confidence, and more attractive ways to present himself physically (clothes, working out, hair style, etc.).

Speaking as a man who supports men and things masculine, there is nothing wrong with this at all. Our society liberated women to pursue any number of (approved by feminism) options. So, in the spirit of equality, it’s completely and utterly fair to free men to pursue any options they so desire and to free him of the pressure to sacrifice his very life on the altar of a society that sees him either disposable or completely invisible. Men needn’t be cultural cannon fodder.

But, like women, in order to pursue options, a man must learn new personal skills. Women now make up the majority college attendees and graduates to hopefully learn skills to enter careers. Men – especially young men – seek out and learn PUA to gain a skill set that allows them to pursue more options. That’s perfectly reasonable and rather balanced in the grand scheme of things. PUA skills will become increasingly necessary because of hypergamy and the imbalance between men and women receiving college degrees.

As a skill set, PUA can be used however a man sees fit. Given the strong negative response to those three simple letters, we can change up the nomenclature to mollify those with delicate emotional sensibilities. Let’s call this skill set “learned charisma and confidence”. That sounds so much better, no? It’s not sleeping around, a man uses his new skills of charisma and confidence to fulfill his relationship goals with the opposite sex. Isn’t it fun to bandy semantics? Wordplay aside, if a man wants to use his charisma and confidence find himself in horizontal repose with many women, I give him two thumbs up. If he wants to find a special woman with whom to secure an intimate and committed relationship, my thumbs remain up.

As an aside and as Dagonet pointed out, there’s an awful lot of political discussion amongst the guys in the ‘Sphere. This is not my bailiwick but it does make sense given how culture and politics are ultimately intertwined. I argue that men need to now act individualistically without much regard to how their actions impact either politics or culture. With a large number of men acting on a such basis, a collective and masculine inertia will commence, if it hasn’t already started. In his blog post, Dagonet spoke of how many men found a relatively unorganized but ultimately unified endeavor through PUA. When a sufficient number of men operate in concert – even if to be more successful with their relationship goals – a cultural shift for the benefit of men will inevitably occur.

[If you liked this post, click the Donate button or support me through Patreon. Thanks.]

 

Racism In Dating?! (Not This Crap Again)

Start here. Read the article. Do some research on the author. Then come back to this blog post. Here’s a quote from the piece:

In 2014, the data-obsessed OKCupid calculated the odds of a user “liking” a profile on its Tinder-like service Quickmatch. When it comes to straight daters, they discovered that women expressed a strong preference for men of their own race. But one group of males fared particularly well outside of their race: Asian and Latina women showed above average odds of “liking” profiles featuring white men.

[Note: I’m ignoring the part about the online dating website about white folks seeking white folks]

I’ve written about this before and each time this accusation of racism in dating preferences erupts like an infected cultural cyst, it must be cleaned up with alacrity. First of all, “data-obsessed” is a great thing. Data shows patterns of human behavior. Data shows generalizations, a good thing for helping to understand human nature. Don’t like it? Tough shit, sociologists and psychologists need such data. OKCupid has some of the best research of real, honest human behavior based on real actions, not some bullshit surveys rife with sample bias.

Hey Tracy Clark-Flory, how about “my body my choice” be applied to attraction preferences between the sexes? Imposing still more social expectations on attraction and dating won’t make the process any easier. Such expectations only serve to increase personal frustration. If a woman prefers one type of man, where do you get the vile conceit that you can apply some sort of pressure for her to change her perfectly natural preferences? Dating preferences are private. Attraction happens between our ears, away from the prying eyes of politically correct busy-bodies anxious to transform dating into a delusional utopia.

Wait, there’s more!

In a blog post, OKCupid’s Christian Rudder refrained from labeling these preferences as racist. “On an individual level, a person can’t really control who turns them on—and almost everyone has a ‘type,’ one way or another,” he wrote. “But I do think the trend—that fact that race is a sexual factor for so many individuals, and in such a consistent way—says something about race’s role in our society.”

Good for Rudder. He’s a data guy, not a politically correct guy. He’s also clearly aware of the perils of collecting such data. Ever hear of the term “hate facts“? Rudder certainly has so he selects his words carefully. Private human behavior is not politically correct. What happens between our ears is the zenith of privacy if it’s not spoken or acted upon. Until the thought police becomes real, attraction can’t be enforced by social justice warriors or even shamed by that same group of cultural miscreants.

Tracy Clark-Flory is attempting to play the race card in a game where she, and her unpleasant ilk, are unwelcome. Think of a party crasher with bad manners and poor hygiene. Attraction is not a choice. It can’t be shamed. It can’t be negotiated. Anyone who falls for such nonsense is clearly not ready for dating. The ugly stink of political correctness must be washed off before attempting to start using online dating websites. As well, dating is not about achieving cultural ideals. It’s about fulfilling personal relationship goals. Let’s wrap up with a last quote from the article:

In other words, swiping right on a white guy seems more innocuous than navigating over to Where White People Meet, but on a societal level, it just might be a smaller expression of everyday racism.

“Everyday racism”. No, everyday social shaming from you, you horrible person. I recommend that every online dating user swipe how he or she decides based on his or her own personal preferences. This applies to everyone, straight or not. As someone who provides attraction and dating information based on reality, I will never shame a woman into desiring a short guy. I won’t shame a guy into desiring an overweight woman.

Something else I haven’t mentioned in this blog post, my own individual dating experiences and preferences. Why? Because it’s none of anyone’s fucking business.

[If you liked this blog post, click the Donate button or support me through Patreon. Many thanks.]

A Woman Responds To A Recent Blog Post

I sometimes get some great comments. The one that I received today is mid-range. It’s worth commenting on but not worth letting through moderation. The commenter, a woman, was motivated by this relatively recent blog post on feminine pleasantness.

The original comment is in italics, my responses are in boldface.

Wow. That post was really unkind and unreflective of reality. And by unkind, I mean misogynistic and lacking in human compassion. Women are human, just like men.

Misogynistic? I get that often enough. This is because I violate the 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not criticize women”. Women are indeed human. They also have patterns of bad behavior and character flaws that cause huge problems when it comes time for them to find an intimate relationship with a man.

We also do not want to hang out with men who cannot control their moods and who are grumpy and sullen day after day. It is also not our job to make a man happy when he cannot find his own happiness.

I agree with this. Any adult, man or women, who doesn’t have at least some control over their negative moods is nothing more than a child. Men, in particular, must control those moods. Women are cut way too much slack in this area. Also, why is he grumpy and sullen? Bad day at work? 

We also are attracted to men who can remain calm and smile through adversity. Replace the female pronouns, etc., in your post with male pronouns and vice versa and your post would be equally true.

Again, I agree. Men must be stoic in the face of adversity. This is true strength and shows serious backbone, catnip to women.

Your idea that women are “naturally” one way and men “naturally” another way is false and silly.

This statement is idiotic. Common and predictable behaviors based on one’s sex are well-studied and well-known. Of course, you have an exception to those common behaviors which you mean to prove my assertions incorrect. Guess what cupcake, you’re using the logical fallacy of “the example of one”. Brilliant. #facepalm. Look beyond the solipsistic confines of your own experiences.

My husband had that attitude and that is why he’s now single. He believed he could stomp around the house and pout, take me for granted and treat me however he wished, and my job was to smile, bake cookies and give him a BJ.

His biggest mistake was stomping around and pouting. But, you said “yes” when he proposed. But was he always like that? Or did you encourage him to be more in touch with his feelings? Guess what, that stomping and pouting are expressions of his feelings.

Ummm, no. Not going to happen. Now he gets to smile at himself, bake his own cookies and make friends with his right hand, all while being a single parent 50% of the time and cleaning his own house and living off 50% less salary. See how that worked out? Granted, he is now working on finding the doormat of his dreams, but thankfully it won’t be me.

Why 50% less salary? Oh, right… alimony and child support? Wait, no child support, 50% custody. You’re still getting child support with only 50% custody? Oh my. Regardless, since you’re getting alimony in the form of 50% of his salary, that means he was the primary breadwinner. Congrats, you won the divorce game! There’s a lesson here, guys.

Additionally, women would not be required to be so strong and independent if they could actually rely on men, but the biggest complaint I hear from women my age (early 40s) is that having their husband is like having another child.

Men of a certain age have been taught, by women, to let the women be more strong and independent. You think men want to be hopelessly dependent? I agree, that’s awful. But here’s a solution to all you strong and independent women disgusted with the state of men today, date other women. As for men being like kids in the house, how are they at work? Oh, right, those women have no clue. But I’m sure they reap the benefits of those men’s salaries.

You know what’s a huge turn off for a women? Being incapable. Emotionally, psychologically, verbally, around the house, with the kids, etc. If your wife has to take care of you like a child, she doesn’t want to sleep with you too. Because, that’s gross. She doesn’t want to service you at night after doing all the stuff you were incapable of doing all day in addition to her own tasks.

Um, back to his salary, he seems to be capable of that. And please don’t spew that “it’s all about his money” crap. You’re taking alimony, remember? That’s his money. However, in the scenario you described, perhaps he’s getting alimony from you! If that’s the case, you go guy!!!

She doesn’t want to have to help you “identify your feelings” and “use your words” in conversation and then do you later. Not sexy, guys. And if you don’t want to hear a women speak her mind, get a prostitute. I think it was Billy Idol who said, “I don’t pay to sleep with them. I pay for them to go away.”

That was Charlie Sheen, by the way. OK, you’re contradicting yourself here. On one hand, you want the man to be stoic in the face of adversity and now you’re talking about helping him with identifying (and expressing, no doubt) his feelings. Pick one. Guys, while she’s trying to sort that out without her brain overheating, let me help. Be stoic in the face of adversity.

Also, when a woman speaks her mind, is it valuable to him? Does it really add to the conversation and even the relationship? If not, women must activate that ol’ verbal filter. Far too often, “speaking her mind” is code for “I’m gonna bitch and moan and inject verbal drama in your life but don’t stop making a salary”.

If you want your wife to sleep with you and then pretend she doesn’t have thoughts, feelings and concerns in life, marry a prostitute and pay her day rate every day.

There are more than a few guys who think that’s the current state of marriage. Of course, they’re still not getting the sex they paid for. Doh!

This whole comment is nothing more than “men do it too!” Yeah, some do. But I don’t write like that. I also stand by my assertion in the original blog post that kindness, pleasantness, and caring are wonderfully feminine traits and men must screen for those type of women during the dating process. Keep those comments coming!

[If you liked the blog post, click the Donate button at the top of the page or support my Patreon efforts. Many thanks]

Frame – Three Quick Personal Stories

It is both a blessing and a curse to live in a town where all the locals know, or know of, everyone. It’s a unique place because it’s surrounded by a large metropolitan area, Fort Lauderdale. But once across the bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway, the city is left behind and the smallish seaside town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea takes over.

There is a healthy turnover of tourists and part-time residents (“snowbirds”). Separate from that population are the folks who live here permanently. That’s me and a small few thousand. During the off-season, summer, when the hot and humid nastiness smothers us, the local population is together. Normally, we all mostly get along with a polite friendliness and some typical gossip. Of course, familiarity does breed some contempt.

There are three local women who loathe me. They are all older than me, if not in age, in hard-bitten experience with too much tough living along with past and present bad decisions. I won’t go into details of a life in the sun does to the skin. All three have this problem. With their tough hides come tough personalities. Sophisticated, these dames ain’t.

Why they loathe me, I have a hunch why but it’s not particularly relevant here. I pay them little attention aside from being briefly cordial. I know they loathe me from a few verbal exchanges that were inflicted on me. For each of the three woman, I took a different tactic but held to my strategy of having very strong frame. Some background here… in each exchange, the women were drunk to some degree.

The first incident happened at my local neighborhood dive bar. I was sitting across the bar, not talking to anyone, my dog at my feet. I was fiddling around with my smart phone. My dog, sitting on the floor next to me, barked a couple of times.

“Andrew! Shut that fucking dog up!” screamed a woman from the other side of the bar. This was one of the women in town who loathes me.

I just looked at the woman and didn’t say anything. The bartender, a good guy and almost standing between us, wasn’t getting involved.

In an attempt to escalate, the woman continued and screamed at me again. “You’re a fucking scumbag!”. Having a good frame, I came back with a classic agree and amplify.

“You’re right Laurie! I’m a scumbag! I come from a family of scumbags!”

She glared at me. I continued.

“My father was a scumbag, my grandfather was a scumbag…”

Her glare got worse.

“but my great-grandfather was a total douchebag!”

With that, the bartender burst out laughing. Several other patrons overhearing the verbal exchange also started laughing. I quickly went back to my smart phone. I didn’t waste a further look at the woman.

The next incident came from my neighbor, a woman I’ve written about her previously. She often spends her evenings sitting outside, smoking cigarettes and drinking cheap beer until she gets obstreperous with the drink. The booze melts what little of a verbal filter she still possesses. Because of temporary Internet connectivity issues I had to walk past her towards the back of the building to capture a Wifi signal on my phone. She was ready at ambush me verbally when I walked past the old lady and gave her a polite greeting as I always do.

“You going back there like the loser neighbor?”

The neighbor in the front unit also sometimes does the same thing because of Wifi issues.

“Yup, I have connectivity issues” I replied.

“You’re a fucking loser like her” was her pithy retort. I was not fazed because I’ve experienced this kind of stuff from her previously. I simply laughed and continued walking.

On return a few minutes later, she continued. “You piss me off so much because…” She spouted off a things about my work schedule (I work a lot from home) and that I had no shame or some such nonsense, yadda yadda yadda. I actually stopped to address her, with a smirk on my face.

“Your emotional response to me is not my problem. That’s your problem” I said pleasantly. “I actually make you angry? That’s something you have control over.” This stymied her completely. She was expecting a defensive, snarling response from me.

“I’ll remember that…” she said with a stammer. I didn’t know if it was a defensive comment or an acknowledgement. I didn’t care. I was still focusing on my frustrating ‘Net connectivity issue.

As I walked into my place, the old broad had a classy parting shot.

“You’re such a loser, you can only date niggers!”

“Wow, stay classy” was my calm response and I closed the door behind me.

Yes, she escalated to that point because she was desperate to break my frame by using a personal attack that is actually true. I was indeed involved with a lovely black woman and my curmudgeonly neighbor had met her on several occasions. This black woman was also from England with an hilarious Birmingham accent to go along with her lovely and dark-skinned visage. She thought I was a wanker and I thought she was a pain in the butt. Ah, ain’t dating grand? [Update, 01/01/2016 – P is reading this now]

It is now at least a month later and my old lady neighbor does not even acknowledge my existence. No matter, I still offer a pleasant greeting each time I see her. I thank that galls her in some way. Excellent.

The third woman in this string of estrogen wonder confronted me at my local pub hangout. She and another woman were bitching about Lucy, my ugly dog. I was ignoring them while I sipped ginger ale and worked on a blog post on my laptop. There were some comments about how I took care of my dog (Lucy the ugly dog was with me, as usual) but nothing really personal as my old lady neighbor had done.

Later in the evening, one of the women moved to the other side of the bar because the other had left. I was only vaguely aware of her move until she started yelling at me.

“You’re a jack ass, Andrew!” The place was pretty crowded so her loud insult wasn’t heard by many. I glanced up at her and said nothing. I looked down at my keyboard because I was gnawing on a stubborn sentence. She yelled something at me again. I completely ignored her. Eventually, she lost interest and began bothering the guy sitting closest to her. Poor fellow.

In all three instances, I never let my frame waver. I used several of the tactics I learned from reading Manosphere blogs. There was agree and amplify, amused mastery, and completely ignoring someone. The unflappable man doesn’t let words faze him. None of these three women did anything physical. They were attempting to start a fight with words. I didn’t let it happen.

[If you liked this blog post, please click the Donate button or support my Patreon efforts. Thanks!]

 

Let’s Try To Fix Online Dating

One of the biggest problems with online dating is the vast number of messages that attractive women receive from men. This makes the online dating experience too frustrating for both sexes. Too few women get bombarded with too many messages. Those women are forced to weed through the terrible mediocrity of those messages. Ordinary men get fed up because their response rate is so low. This is a lose-lose proposition for everyone including the online dating company.

Another huge problem is that too many people don’t take online dating seriously enough. They don’t log in particularly frequently or respond enough to incoming messages. They also don’t even open messages before deleting them. This is not online dating, it’s “catalog” dating, a serious limitation with online dating where the assumption is that there is always another profile, another member of the opposite sex available for a date.

A solution to this is to limit the number of incoming messages a woman can receive in a certain interval of time. Even if she deletes the message(s), no more messages can be received until the next interval of incoming messages commences. Mix it up it further by introducing a random element of time, 30 days, then 17 days, then 23 days, etc. That interval is never revealed to any user.

When a woman receives the the maximum number of incoming messages for that given time period, her profile is not available for display, it is completely hidden. There is no incoming message queue or waiting list. As well, the more incoming messages and pace of those messages, the fewer number of future messages she could receive for the next incoming message time interval.

Here’s another bit of functionality that would very much stir up this new hypothetical online dating website. Once a certain threshold of incoming messages is reached and she hasn’t responded to any of them, a woman cannot send out any type of message to a man, not even a “flirt” or “wink”. She can still view profiles but even if she views them, the men are not notified that the woman has looked at their profiles. The ability to send outgoing messages is determined by the response to existing incoming messages.

As for that responses to incoming messages, there can be two options, “Start a correspondence”, and “No, thanks”. This is a simple check box. If the person receiving the incoming message is sent a message with the “Start a correspondence” option selected, the two may continue messaging each other regardless if the original receiver’s incoming message queue is full or not. If a “No, thanks” response message is sent. The recipient is made invisible to both users, permanently removing both from seeing each online again.

To ensure that the two people escalate into a phone call or text, the number of back and forth messages is limited also. One of the messages must include a phone number that might be validated through a text through the system. The purpose of all this involvement with technology in the communication is to help push along the corresponders into an actual date.

Other solutions would be to only allow message deletion to occur after it has been opened and the sender’s profile displayed. Deleting an unread message without reviewing a profile completely defeats the whole online dating process. Having users read messages and the associated profile before acting encourages using the online dating website seriously.

Of course, the profiles are validated so that scammers, catfishers, and other users with things to hide are not permitted to sign up. That automated technology now exists and is in use by at least one online dating website. This functionality will likely become the trend for the future given how scammers have saturated existing online dating websites.

By acknowledging that men and women behave differently with their online dating efforts, such functionality essentially acknowledges and supports those common online dating behaviors. There’s no attempt to inflict social expectations on the process. Yes, this new online dating would be for heterosexuals only.

This new functionality would be required for creating better online dating profiles. This would naturally include photos (for both sexes) and more involved text descriptions. There would be one section requiring that both male and female users describes what he/she offers a potential paramour. The minimum number of characters required for this section would be greater for women than men. Women still haven’t figured out they have to describe specifically what they have to offer in the context of attraction and dating.

This flips the online gender power dynamic. Attractive women (and a few men) must pay more to get more messages. Regular women pay the regular rates because they are not bombarded with messages. For those people, the free trial period that includes all functionality can be extended. Of course, if a woman wants to pay more to have her desirability validated more, she’s welcome to it. This also forces women to take online dating more seriously. With fewer incoming messages, she must evaluate the profiles more carefully and act on them by sending a response in a timely manner.

While this new functionality applies mostly to women, it can also be applied to men who get lots of incoming messages. They, too, would have incoming message limits applied just like the popular women. In effect, the sex of the person doesn’t impact the core functionality of limiting messages and other features. There are, however, some features and functions that are sex-specific. Men and women are different, especially in the context of attraction and dating.

These system features both slows down online dating yet speeds up parts of it. Women (all popular singles online, in actuality) must be slow to review profiles displayed through incoming messages yet quick to respond. The haste is enforced with the vanishing message and profile after a certain period of time. If the woman doesn’t respond, the man’s message and profile is completely hidden from that woman. Her rejection through inaction effectively turns into blocking a profile.

There would also be functionality to encourage users to be more serious.
Popular message recipients would be encouraged (the carrot) to log in more often – and therefore taking the process more seriously – by increasing the numbers of allowable incoming messages by a modest amount until an eventual limit is reached. That amount would need some additional research and would be based on algorithms that would dynamically change that amount.

The opposite of the login frequency carrot is the stick where the profile is completely removed from searchability if the login frequency drops below a certain threshold. Of course, warnings would be sent out. Additionally, if the woman doesn’t respond to messages within a certain time interval, her profile visibility on the website decreases to the point of complete invisibility, even if a user name search is done.

The text descriptions in profiles would have a minimum number of characters and photographs. The backend system would, of course, require the primary photo to be a face shot and any improper photo could be flagged for speedy removal. As profiles are validated, that face shot would match the user. Also, profiles could be flagged for not including a full body photo. Hell, the profile wouldn’t even get approved without such a photo.

For an interesting thought experiment, the system could screen for a list of prohibited profile terms like “princess”, “diva”, “queen”, or any phrase that speaks of excess entitlement. That list would be dynamically modified through a review process by the website moderators so that new profiles would be rejected with an appropriate error message so the user could modify the profile .

There would not be an Android or iOS version of the website. Squeezing in a bit of online dating while on the go is not healthy for dating in general. Because fewer messages are available to read, the person reading them shouldn’t be staring into some wee phone screen hoping to find a match while sitting at a stoplight. A personal computer or tablet displaying the full website is required. Here’s another thought experiment – the website can only be accessed when the user is completely alone. Camera and software technology in the PC or tablet could do that.

Also, there would be no algorithms to match people automatically. The user knows what he or she wants, not simply a person selected by a bit of software, regardless of how sophisticated it might be. I certainly believe in the power of technology but I also believe there are some human actions that cannot be replaced by computer programs.

With the weaknesses of conventional online dating causing increasing frustration despite it’s still growing popularity, there simply must be new solutions to address that frustration. Of course, the suggestions I presented comes under the “it’s so crazy, it just might work!” category.

[If you liked this blog post, click the Donate button on the top of this page or support me through my Patreon efforts. Thanks!]

 

The Future Of Online Dating

Sean Rad, Tinder’s CEO recently gave an interview that was described as cringe worthy.

He  says he has a lot of theories about “hook-up culture”, including “that feminism has led to it because now women are more independent and pursuing their desires. And that leads to both parties being more sexually active. It’s not because of Tinder.”

Tinder is owned by Match Group Inc. This recently formed online dating conglomerate was forced to update its SEC IPO filing because of Rad’s extemporaneous remarks.

The future of online dating is going to be determined by one primary factor – the self-reporting nature of online dating profiles. In effect, too many people lie. These aren’t necessarily malicious lies. They are most often lies of omission and lies of aspiration. We don’t tell the whole truth and when we make an attempt at truth in our online dating profiles, we say what we want to be, not what we are.

The lies in profiles make online dating a very bad experience rife with disappointment and frustration. For online dating companies, the challenge is privacy. Verifying information is actually a straightforward technological process. The blockades to truthful, verified online dating profiles are mostly about laws and our own human behavior.

We want to lie on our online dating profiles. We actually need to lie on our online dating profiles because there’s an arms race of bullshit even if unintentional. When one person lies on an online dating profile, it becomes tacit permission for another person to lie. The cycle has been repeating every dating cycle since online dating was invented. In an effort to make us more marketable, we exaggerate, we obfuscate, and we prevaricate.

There’s also a need to control our personal narratives. When we link up to other databases (if we could) such as credit ratings, employment records, marriage and divorce records, police reports, we lose control of our own information. With our digital past in hot pursuit, we can’t craft a new life away from our previous mistakes. For post-divorce singles, this is especially significant because the end of a marriage comes the opportunity for personal change and transformation.

A secondary factor is the catalog mentality – especially in major metropolitan areas – where we happily reject a person knowing full well that there will be yet another profile to evaluate. Some mobile apps are attempting to deal with this. I wrote about it previously.

Here are my predictions for the future of online dating –

1. Mobile apps will continue to grow and possibly overtake PC, browser-based online dating. Delayed matching will be a common feature intentionally or because of premium pricing structures. The culture of sexually hooking up will still be the order of the day for the younger demographics and will also bleed up into the older demographic. The expectation of sex isn’t ending any time soon in the context of dating. Sean Rad was only somewhat right in his interview, feminism did unleash the unrestrained sexuality of youth but it needed something like Tinder to facilitate that unrestrained sexuality.

2. Validated profiles will seriously divide online dating subscribers into two categories with pros and cons for each group. Singles that pay will select validated dating where profiles are checked against existing databases through a background check. It’s already starting with ValiDATE, an online dating service that is being rolled out in various cities as it grows. The expense of validated dating will also serve to weed out the validation queens and entertainment seekers. Paying fees keeps people serious about their dating endeavors. Online dating services without validated profiles will get short shrift. Of course, hackers or the seriously dishonest will find ways to work around the database connections that are used to validate profiles.

3. Videos will gradually become a greater part of all online dating websites and applications. The ability to store and display videos will add a very important dimension to profiles far and above the ordinary photos. Good videos will allow for much better expressions of one’s personality. This, of course, will create specialists who will help create those videos for online dating profiles. It’s up to the online dating services to solve the technical issues.

4. Traditional matchmaking will continue to grow but assisted with online dating so the matchmaker can use it to find a larger pool of singles to match with clients. Regardless, validated online dating and traditional matchmaking will become serious competitors unless clients have the deep pockets to afford the matchmaker’s fees. Online dating can go from the low-end of free online dating websites and mobile apps to high-end of validated profiles. It can not, however, compete with full-service matchmakers.

5. Niche online dating websites will chip away at the big boys from Match Holdings until that company buys them up. This will be an ongoing process. I strongly suspect that entrepreneurs behind niche online dating websites have an exit plan of being bought by Match Holdings so they can profit handsomely. Business is business, after all.

Online dating can’t fix the issues of human behavior. The best that the technology behind it can do is to facilitate how us humble humans can meet one another. It was an excellent idea for online dating websites to organize live events. But such events are not the core competency behind the algorithms and databases driving online dating technology. People still need to meet face to face. After all, the purpose of online dating is to stop online dating. However, that’s actually not good for business.

[If you liked this blog post, please click the Donate button or support me through Patreon. I’m grateful for that.]

Go Ahead, Shame Men

Confession time for The Private Man. In 1992, I worked seriously with the South Carolina Democratic Party when I was living in Charleston. That’s right, I’m a Democrat. When Bill Clinton was running, Hillary became a negative to his campaign efforts. She caught flak for being a “strong and independent” woman. At the time, there was a standard response to ANY criticism of Mrs. Clinton:

You’re just intimidated by a strong and independent woman.

Back in the early 90s, a few years before the Internet and the spread of knowledge of human behavior to about a zillion guys, this comeback was reasonably effective and shutting up the critic. Even in 1992, the ideology of progressive had a strong hold on our culture. In 1988, George Bush (the original model) cleverly turned the word “liberal” into an insult during his campaign against Michael Dukakis. This is one of the main reasons why those on the left now refer to themselves primarily as “progressives”. Yeah, I like social and cultural history.

The insults to shut down discussions haven’t stopped. It’s a standard rhetorical tactic. There’s a whole list of them here. It’s also in my blog roll so my readers have the tools to prepare for such insults. However, the words, by themselves, ultimately end up being meaningless when confronted with the end result actions. It’s the general disrespect of men and masculinity that spurs men into actions.

When the social contract between the sexes broke down, a new era of conflict between men and women erupted, most often through ideological proxies. As men and women are so vastly different, some form of verbal conflict is inevitable. But when that conflict inserts itself into strong social expectations, the social manifestation becomes very clear if completely unintentional.

The current conflict between the sexes is a fuzzy mix of ideology and biology. The fuzz is exacerbated when attraction, dating, and relationships are stirred into the mix.
Let’s make it even worse with personal agendas and conflict within individuals. The conflict within ourselves is between resolve biology with social expectations.

Red Pill knowledge is partially about sorting out the conflicts and personal agendas through understanding human behavior with its consistency and predictability. We’re not special snowflakes. We’re Homo sapiens complete with 500K years of psychological and behavioral evolution behind us. Civilization is a finger snap of time and social expectations require the blunt forces of culture, religion, and social enforcement. The enforcement element is most often

Shaming is an example of such social enforcement. The shame is expressed through insults. Men catch a raft of such insults, especially when they have the unmitigated gall of questioning social expectations or. worse, act on their own self-interest. As men, we know all know the insults – man-boy, Peter Pan, commitment phobe, whiny baby, and so many others. I’m particularly fond of “man up!” because that one has two meanings depending on who is saying it.

I had originally envisioned this blog post as advice for men to cope with such insults. It doesn’t require a long essay. It boils down to this – ignore the insults and do what you want within the law. It’s encouraging to read that the actions of growing numbers of men are demonstrating that they are indeed ignoring the shaming language and doing what they choose to. From this we have men’s rights activism (MRA), men going their own way (MGTOW), and masculine self-improvement (MSI). PUA is part of MSI.

The Internet allows men to find strength to resist the insults and sundry bullshit that comes with destructive, anti-choice social expectations. That strength comes from talking among ourselves as men. It’s the new men’s club. With some righteous masculine solidarity, insults and shame mean nothing. We can share well-researched but socially unpopular statistics and truths. Better, we can help each other to resist.

This strength among men is getting some serious push back. The insults get meaner, the attacks get personal, and men’s livelihoods are threatened. This push back can be handled relatively easily with humor and increased anonymity. Digital insults are just words. Men are responding with actions. The biggest example is the decline of marriage. The other great example is men understanding that “strong and independent™” are great for sex but not worthy of commitment

As for that push back, there is a huge threat that looms large and it’s already starting. Freedom of expression is under direct attack. Changing the laws is the next tactic wielded by those with hostility towards men and masculinity. In the interim, denying a place for public speech (in real life) is the current tactic. It’s only a matter of time until “hate speech” (any words or ideas that run counter to “accepted” speech) is outlawed with the power of law enforcement and criminal courts used to back it up.

There is a counterattack to that, thankfully. Use the laws equally, regardless of the ideology that promulgates the “hate speech”. It’s a short-term solution, at best. Any laws restricting free speech can completely stifle ANY free expression. This will result in a culture incapable of critical thought and open discussion.

What this means for men trying to improve themselves is that verbal caution is still necessary. The Red Pill subreddit and other forums tell many tales of MRAs don’t need that and haven’t been restrained in their words. The MGTOW crowd can simply keep on the same path because, frankly, when it comes to fucks, none are given from them.

It really doesn’t matter if a man is “intimidated” by  a “strong and independent woman”. It doesn’t matter if he’s a “man-boy” or that he “whines”. Those are simple subjective descriptions. If manhood and masculinity is denigrated enough, men act. They pull away. Men aren’t stupid, they respond to incentives and disincentives. Social shaming is a tremendous disincentive for strong and independent men to following social norms.

Heaping shame and disrespect on men’s head will cause him to rightfully turn to tactics and strategies to accomplish their own goals on their own terms. This is encouraging. When I learn of men improving themselves or responding in other ways such as becoming MRAs of MGTOWs, I rejoice, as must all men. Here’s the punchline: if men taking social shaming seriously and then adjusting their behaviors to toe the social line, they lose respect from men and women alike.

[If you liked this blog post, please click the Donate button or support me through my Patreon efforts.]

“Journalism” Meets The Red Pill

With increased frequency, hide-bound and agenda-driven mainstream media outlets are making a stab at writing about Red Pill wisdom. Usually, the stab hits air. The Telegraph, a UK news outlet recently published an opinion piece written by a young woman who seemed eager to throw some written poop at Red Pill thought. She hit air. with especially runny poo. Read it before continuing to read this blog post:

“Welcome to the Red Pill: The angry men’s rights group that ‘knows what women want’”

The piece was clearly written hastily and with the weakest of research. The author, Rebecca Reid, is a mere freelance typist who churns out content for the “Wonder Woman” section of The Telegraph online. As best as I can tell, her content is only to provide a marginally useful function for some idle electrons in The Telegraph’s idle electron storage facility. That facility is shared with the Huffpost Women’s section.

I was actually moved to comment on the piece, something I rarely do in a mainstream media outlet. In fact, I think this is the first time I’ve ever done so. My comment is buried a bit so here it is:

“Feminists want men to become something that women are not attracted to.”

As an aside, Red Pill ideas are certainly not limited to one subreddit or the various subreddits linked to it. There are dozens upon dozens of websites, blogs, and forums where Red Pill thinking is discussed and where men and women are learning some elemental, biologically based truths about human behavior and its essential predictability.

The entire dating coach industry is built upon Red Pill truths that help men and women understand each other from a realistic and not fantasy point of view. Most dating coaches, however, won’t self-identify as Red Pill practitioners, they will even deny it. Yet looking at what the successful dating coaches teach, it is very clear that in order to be successful, the dating coach does indeed teach difficult, Red Pill truths, just delivered in more palatable ways. If the dating coach gives bad, fantasy-based advice, he/she will simply go out of business leaving behind clients still single and still frustrated.

As the writer of the opinion piece brought up The Red Pill subreddit, it’s important to know that this subreddit is now in the top 300 of all subreddits and has over 137,000 members. It’s also important to know that the subreddit is mostly populated by young men because these are the men most frustrated and confused by the massive conflict between “progressive”, ideologically-based social expectations and hard-wired, DNA-based behaviors of human beings, especially in the context of attraction between men and women. So, these young men turn to sources of truth and reality, away from the fantasy world of contemporary social expectations.

These young men also turn to pick-up artists (PUAs) to learn both the science and art of being more attractive to young women and the skills required to fulfill their relationship goals, even if that goal is for a one-night sexual encounter. PUAs are often excoriated in the mainstream media and web-based media targeted at women. But it makes little difference because men want honest answers and the truth wants to come out.

Finally, the Cassie Jaye movie only covers the MRA branch of Red Pill wisdom. PUA and MGTOW is not part of its content. But given the extraordinary fundraising success (via Kickstarter) of her upcoming documentary, perhaps she will have a couple of follow-up films that cover the other two branches of the Red Pill/Manosphere approach that increasing numbers of men are using to improve their lives.

Another comment (by Isaac T. Quill) also caught my attention. It was an absolutely brilliant bit of biting satire and needs to be shared:

A Little known fact that Rebecca Reid missed completely. Red Pill vs Blue Pill is a long-standing debate from the 1840’s. … that’s right she’s out by over 160 years.

Blue pill refers to a gentle laxative made with mercury chloride, and the red pill an alternate Mercury laxative made with Mercury oxide. In days of old Physicians would be red pillers to blue pillers depending upon their prescribing habits.

Not a lot of people know that – and evidently Rebecca Reid doesn’t and also can’t be bothered with basic professional research… so could she stop calling herself a Journalist. I’m sure it breaches the Trades Descriptions Act (1968) under section 2.1.(d) “fitness for purpose, strength, performance, behaviour or accuracy;”.

The Red Pill is going to get lots more attention in the future. It will not be pretty but it will be lots of fun. I might comment more depending on the content.

[If you liked this blog post, do the clicky thing on the Donate button above. Or, my Patreon beckons.]

It’s Not Your Fault! (Actually, It Is)

I read a lot. I read articles written for men. I read articles written for women. I read articles about cultural trends that affect the relationships between men and women. Even if I loathe the topic of the article, I still read it. I recently Tweeted that 80% of articles in women’s magazines and websites have one theme regardless of topic: “It’s not your fault”. I was exaggerating to make a point. There are plenty of other themes that women write about to each other.

When not excusing stupid and shitty female behavior because it’s not her fault, women’s magazines and articles do write about female self-improvement. This most often is about hair, fashion, and makeup. Such self-improvement is about looking more feminine. If we could only have more articles helping women to ACT in a more feminine manner. Writing for women is all about feel-good, emotionally validating, you go grrl content.

Contrast this with Red Pill articles and discussion threads written by men and for men. That writing unhesitatingly excoriates male readers for stupid or shitty life decisions. The strongest language is reserved for men who behave in ways that prevent them achieving the goals in their lives. Such a tone is not all about shame. Many men need a strong kick in the ass as motivation. Red Pill/Manosphere writers wield a powerful boot when it comes to these key areas where legions of men need improvement because of:

• Limited Social Skills
• Supplicating Behaviors
• Lousy Style
• Poor Diet and Health
• No Confidence
• General Invisibility To Women
• Defeatist Mindset

Once the initial sting of the Red Pill foot-to-derriere has subsided, men have vast amounts of online resources to consult. There are blogs, message boards, videos, and consulting/coaching services. Few, if any, of such resources are available through mainstream media channels. Rollo’s or Cappy’s books aren’t available in bookstores. Ever hear of a Red Pill psychologist or counselor? Graduate schools simply don’t teach it because of the political incorrectness.

It’s particularly encouraging that many young men see the problems of the mainstream cultural lies they are told. Given their direct and personal experience, they know something’s dangerously wrong. The Manosphere gives them a place to find answers and direct advice on how to address those lies through honest self-improvement away from the stifling mainstream influence that attempts to suppress masculinity.

When read those “it’s not your fault” written by and for women, I roll my eye in wonderment at the ridiculousness. I then read the letters to dating coaches where women express their supreme frustration when they can’t meet their relationship goals. Do they not see the connection? I think that dating coaches are secretly and cleverly writing those articles to drive up demand for their business.

Most men are not stupid. This especially applies to young men not raised with the notion that they must put women on a pedestal while also being in touch with their feeeeeelings. I am encouraged by such young men. They easily navigate the Internet to find resources and information. They inevitably stumble into the Manosphere and other Red Pill websites. They are also quite willing to seek and consult other men for advice. I hope that older men can do the same.

[If you liked this blog post, click the Donate button or support me through Patreon.]

Unleash The Neg!

[Note: I had originally intended to make this a video podcast but the ideas here do best in writing, not me talking at my video camera.]

Over four years, I wrote about the self-esteem crisis facing American girls and women. Here is the salient paragraph from my original blog post.

Simply put, contemporary female self-esteem is far too high. Girls and women think too highly of themselves. Whether a teen-aged princess or a middle-aged goddess, females value themselves far in excess of the social/sexual cultural realities as well as the evolutionary psychology realities.

Self-esteem is one’s sense of self-worth. It’s when a person has a strong internal sense of self. Self-esteem and confidence are certainly related. Red Pill wisdom states that a man should have confidence. It’s the emotional power to overcome adversity and grow from it. As women are qualitatively different from men, her emotion strength to simply survive adversity. There is a difference here.

Be wary of many sociological and psychological studies about low self-esteem because they can suffer terribly from selection bias. Simply put, when asked if a person could be the victim of something, that person will answer in the affirmative. This very much applies to women more than men. After all, to the victim goes the spoils – from attention and sympathy all the way to expensive government social programs. But the worst manifestation of getting the social spoils is freedom from consequences of individual decisions and actions.

When it comes to attraction and dating, there are some seriously ugly downstream effects of excess female self-esteem:

• Loss of humility
• Being bossy and domineering
• Indulging in the “having it all” myth
• “I’m always right” or “I always get what I want”
• What “I want” becomes “I deserve”
• Extraordinary pickiness
• Willful ignorance in the face of demographic facts
• Loss of empathy
• Increased “bitch shield“
• Overestimation sense of one’s dating “market value”
• The princess/queen fallacy (check the online dating profiles for those words of self-description)

None of these make a woman more attractive to men. Successful dating coaches know this and have a tremendously challenging balancing act to perform with their female clients. They must rein in the female ego and encourage feminine attractiveness. At the same time, women are awash in social messages such as “love yourself” and “You go, Grrl!”

To circle around to the title of this blog post, it’s important that men have a technique to deal with a woman’s jumbo self-esteem. In old school Pickup Artistry (PUA) is the concept of the “neg“. This word is both a verb and a noun. It is also one of the most controversial elements of PUA techniques.

The neg is intended to be used carefully and with nuance and subtlety. It is not a verbal hammer to be wielded with clumsy impunity. In the context of a woman’s over-inflated self-esteem, the neg can be something fairly neutral. I’ve used this line with great success:

“I see you have that whole self-esteem issue under control”.

This line is not an insult, it’s a statement to acknowledge a woman has no shortage of ego. It puts her on notice that the man can see through her bluster and facade. It’s also a reminder that the man seeks feminine qualities, not masculine qualities clumsily tacked on to a female body.

Using the neg must be done with masculine confidence and with a strong element of flirting. Delivered with a wry smirk (gentlemen, practice that look), the neg can be devastatingly effective in poking a necessary hole in a woman’s unrealistic self-esteem. Of course, if a woman is insufferably awash in ego, it’s time for the nuclear option.

I read that this is a Swedish quote regarding women – she should be happy, humble, and grateful. Is there anything wrong with this? I don’t think so. Note: A reader from Sweden corrected me regarding that quote. According to that comment, it’s “Happy, horny, and grateful”. That fits well, too.

[If you liked this blog post, click the Donate button or support me through my Patreon efforts. Thanks!]