The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

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!]

Beware The Self-Fulfilling Prophesy

I recently got a call from my buddy, Mark the musician. He’s a regular reader of my blog and lives in South Florida. As he studies Red Pill wisdom, he’s very in tune with the reality of life, not the fantasy of life. Mark is very aware of physical appearance and his lifestyle. for better and worse. As a single guy in a high-profile profession – he plays bass in local and traveling bands – he’s often asked about his relationship status. He’s single and not currently dating anyone.

When asked about why he’s not dating anyone, Mark is too honest with his response. He freely admits that he’s short, bald (shaved head), 48 years old, and lives with his aging mother so he can help her out. He also admits that his job is music, not exactly a source of steady income. As he said during our phone conversation, he thinks logically about himself. This is the peril of masculine introspection. He knows too well his shortcomings.

“Men think logically and that includes thinking about himself” he accurately observed. This is amplified by adhering to Red Pill thought where direct honesty is far more important than stupidly unrealistic social expectations. This, however, presents a serious dilemma for men. We soundly criticize women for having a wildly unrealistic self-perception of attractiveness. Red Pill guys can go too far in the other direction regarding self-perception if they are too realistic. It comes to this: “I see too many unattractive, unchangeable things about me so women will never find me attractive”

Such realism can cause a self-fulfilling prophesy. There is nothing wrong with realism until it knocks down a guy’s confidence. This is exacerbated when certain elements of masculine attractiveness are beyond a man’s control. Height is the biggest example. Once a man hits a certain age, he’s not growing any more. The same applies to hair loss unless drastic measures are taken. But weight can be lost, social skills and confidence gained, and charisma learned.

A conventional, and accurate, tenet within Pickup Artistry (PUA) circles is “have irrational self-confidence”. This is easy for the dames because they think emotionally. A post-wall woman uses a mirror as a time machine to the past when her desirability was at its peak. She can do this because her emotions alter how she perceives herself. This, by the way, is a sub-species of the rationalization hamster. Men, being the kings for logic, reason, and realism look at the mirror and typically see their real selves, not some fantasy version thereof.

Such realism is good for masculine self-improvement because a man can see what needs improvement that can be improved. But the realism is a double-edged sword. It can be far too easy to evaluate one’s attractiveness in a negative light. This is horrible for a man’s confidence and is easily perceived by others, particularly women.

Thankfully, there is a cure. I give dating advice for women that can be applied to men but with a variation. For the woman, I advise that when she sees a man she finds at least one good thing about him. For a man, I advise that when he looks in the mirror he sees one good thing in himself, preferably more than one. If he sees something that can be fixed, he envisions that changes that must be made to himself, by himself, and for himself.

In Mark’s case, he does NOT resemble a typical late-40s guy. Through his occupation as a musician, he has cultivated a unique look that bespeaks youth, not middle-age. As well, his Red Pill attitude blesses him with the knowledge that he can work on the parts of himself that he can change. This includes leaning on the side irrational self-confidence.

[If you liked this  blog post, encourage me by clicking the Donate button on the top, right of each page or signing up to be a Patreon subscriber. I also offer one-on-one conversations via Skype]

Who Owns The Red Pill?

The first order of business is define the very nature of the Red Pill. As a reader pointed out, the Red Pill way of looking at life is, in actuality, a praxeology. This was a new word to me, as well. Here’s the definition of that word:

(From Wikipedia) The deductive study of human action based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior.[1] According to its theorists, with the action axiom as the starting point, it is possible to draw conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. For example, the notion that humans engage in acts of choice implies that they have preferences, and this must be true for anyone who exhibits intentional behavior.

Going forward, I’ll refer to the Red Pill approach to life as a praxeology because this word fits very well. The Red Pill is not an ideology nor a philosophy.  As a writer, I strive to be precise with my words. The Red Pill praxeology can be defined as this:

Observing and making conclusions about human nature and human behavior based on a firm grounding in reality without undo influence by changeable and unrealistic social expectations. In effect, taking the Red Pill is unplugging from the matrix (hence, the movie reference) of socially and culturally damaging expectations, especially in regards to how men and women interact – socially, romantically, and sexually. This also applies to one’s own behavior and perception of one’s self.

Within the Red Pill, there are three specific divisions, MRA, MGTOW, and PUA. Here are definitions from a blog post I wrote several weeks ago:

1. MRAs – “Mens Rights Activists”. These are the cultural and political soldiers who call attention to the often egregious inequalities in our current legal and social system. If you’re looking for true equality between the sexes, these are the people with whom to align and support. This group also gets the most mainstream media coverage, usually by lazy or ideological-driven “journalists”.

2. MGTOWs – “Men Going Their Own Way” (It’s pronounced “Mig-Tao”) Welcome to the group of men who reject most of the social expectations foisted on the male sex. These are the expectations of self-sacrifice, following the approved life script that insists on cow towing to the feminine imperative, and being cultural cannon fodder for a socio-economic system that views men as completely expendable or simply invisible. MGTOWs ain’t havin’ any of that crap.

3. PUAs – “Pick Up Artists”. Want to learn how women think and act in the context of attraction and seduction? This group of men (and women!) are the part of the Manosphere that has a deep and truthful understanding of the minds of women. Sometimes it’s not pretty to read or watch because PUAs know that women are fundamentally predictable when it comes to the attraction patterns they have for men. [Update: PUA is a subset of Masculine Self Improvement (MSI).

It’s important to know that these three divisions do have conflicts that sometimes erupt into public social media. Mostly, it’s conflict over ideas and that can be good. PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOWs are very independently minded but fundamentally operate within the same praxeology. Very occasionally, the conflict amongst these groups gets rather personal and unpleasantly snarky.

In my ongoing efforts to find Tweets for retweeting and quotes for Tweeting, I recently came across a bit of a conflict between two influential Manosphere writers. The whole conflict came about because of a documentary film currently in production. Cassie Jaye, the documentarian, started digging into the nature of the Red Pill and found the voices of Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). The film, when complete, will cover just that subject.

The film’s creator also did an “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit where she answered a variety of questions including why she didn’t cover the PUA/MSI and MGTOW divisions within the Manosphere and Red Pill praxeology. It’s worth reading through those questions and answers.

As an aside, any discussion about men’s issues is almost always met with abject terror along insane levels of abject rage. Insults fly; logic, reason, and facts are burned to cinders when a broader audience responds to Red Pill ideas. This is not necessarily bad. Such heated emotions – especially from feminists and ideological “progressives” – shows very clearly that people care about such things. The fear and anger also shows that Red Pill ideas strike a strong chord with all the fundamental truths about human nature and human behavior.

From the Brietbart piece, Cassie Jaye’s comment is very telling:

For my previous films: I was able to garner mainstream media attention, I was able to rally support and assistance in post production, my friends would share it with their friends, people (strangers even) would happily engage with me in long conversations about those films, but it seems this film topic REALLY scares people (and/or just makes them angry). It scared me too when I first began this project, but I still was curious to find out what happens. I think, sadly, many people would be very happy if this film just faded away.

Note that the film’s Kickstarter campaign was very successful. That’s a very good sign. It should be out in late 2016 and I urge all my readers to keep an eye on its progress so that it doesn’t just go away. It’s my observation that Red Pill and Manosphere discussion of relevant men’s issues will continue to grow. This will serve to bring key individuals into the spotlight, for better and worse. Personally, I don’t mind percolating in the background but wouldn’t mind a chance in that spotlight.

The Twitter discussion was motivated by the complete absence of the other parts of the Red Pill in the Cassie Jaye documentary. Then, the discussion somewhat addressed who “owns” the Red Pill praxeology. Here is where things get interesting. From a legal point of view, the term “Red Pill” has actually been trademarked! I checked the TESS database from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Here’s what was displayed:

The first live (active?) trademark that could apply to this discussion is from April 13, 2010 and is still owned by Vin DiCarlo Inc. The legal ownership (trademark) of the Red Pill name is clearly part of the PUA realm.  Do you have any doubt that he’s a PUA? That being said, it doesn’t appear if Vin DiCarlo has done much with the name except keep the trademark alive.

Doing some simple URL searching, I also found that there is also a production company with the name Red Pill. It’s rather inactive with the latest copyright notice being from 2013 and no active links are displayed on its only web page.

The use of the Red Pill phrase grew along with the Manosphere. It’s spread into the mainstream media as well as some of the general public. A one-on-one coaching client mentioned the Red Pill subreddit in passing with a bunch of guys. They knew about it but only as “that subreddit that hates women”. The term “red pillers” is used as a pejorative when mentioned on the mainstream Internet media. Let’s not forget that any attention is good attention right now.

As the term Red Pill is, in essence, just a label for a praxeology, there can be little in the way of ownership unless someone is attempting to make money from the use of the term as the title of a business entity. If anyone wants to have a legal tussle with Vin DiCarlo, go for it. That would be interesting and bring even more attention to Red Pill ideas.

As a title, any realm of the Manosphere can use it. A Voice for Men used the term as a tag line for quite a while. Though some in the ‘sphere harbor ill will towards AfM and MRAs in general, the Red Pill is a unifying identity. The word “Manosphere” is also a unifying identity although several attempts were made by various guys to reject it. Good luck with that. Both Manosphere and Red Pill are here to stay given the years of social identity momentum, especially on the ‘Net.

[If you liked this blog post, click the Donate button at the top of the page or support me through my Patreon project]

Two Video Interviews!

In the first interview, Dan Silverman interviewed me about some of the issues facing men in regards to dating. In second interview, I asked him about his dating coach and matchmaking business.

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

Dating Apps – Technology Versus Biology


When the smartphone was released, it was inevitable that some form of online dating would find its way onto the small screens of iPhones and then Android devices. Sure enough, along came Grindr, an app for gay men to find each other. Then came Tinder, something mainly for the heterosexual crowd. I won’t comment on Grindr because that market isn’t what I write about. Tinder, however, has certainly had an impact on the heterosexual “dating” scene. Dating is in quotations because Tinder has a reputation has an app used for primarily for sexual liaisons, not establishing relationships beyond such encounters between consenting adults. A note about terms, an “app” refers to software that runs on smart phones or smart devices such as tablets. Tinder is not the traditional online dating website such as Match or OKCupid.

Tinder was first greeted very cautiously by the pundits. As general location was part of the user’s profile, safety (for the women, of course) was the initial concern. Because the specific user location was not revealed in Tinder, that concern was appropriately brushed aside and users flocked to the app. It also helped that it was free at the time. Within a relatively short time, users were swiping left and swiping right on the profiles with photos originating from the users’ Facebook accounts. But all was not joyous in dateville. Tinder’s user interface function brought out common human behaviors that aren’t harmonious with actually meeting people to form lasting relationships.

The basic and serious problems can be categorized thusly:

  1. Users who are not serious about meeting… at all. Tinder devolved into a bar game or a validation fix. In this category are users who swiped (right or left, it doesn’t matter for these users) strictly for the purposes of entertainment or confirmation of his or her (mostly her) desirability.
  2. Too many choices too soon. This is the catalog mentality that all online dating suffers from. Swiping left (rejection!) is far too easy because there’s always another profile displayed.
  3. Rudeness and crudeness mostly from guys sending messages to girls once a mutual match occurs. This is fallout from Tinder’s reputation as a sexual hook-up app. Guys simply assume that the girl he matches with wants a sexual encounter and soon.

The first two problems are probably as the result of girls using Tinder. Girls love the attention and the availability of so many options leads to a constant left-swipe rejection. The last problem is all about the men. Men are more biologically assertive sexually so it shows regarding the messages they send on Tinder. All three issues with Tinder originate primarily from the DNA-based behavior of human beings as a species. The app did a fine job of capitalizing on that.

But those complaints and the backlash became stronger and stronger. Tinder’s strengths very soon highlighted the weakness as described above. As the dating app is business, fees were eventually established. This also served to curb some of the entertainment and validation seeking users. But the remaining two problems couldn’t be sufficiently addressed with something as simple as imposing a fee on serious Tinderizers.

Enter the dames to create some competition for Tinder. First up, Coffee Meets Bagel (CMB). This app was designed to address at least two of the serious Tinder issues. By working with a user’s existing social network circle of friends (Facebook again), the app only serves up matches within that circle of online friends. Also, matches are only presented one at a time and only for 24 hours. This means that the user viewing the match has time to evaluate but with a deadline. Perhaps this results in a high mutual match rate. I don’t know if the match is ever presented again but that person could be tracked down via Facebook if necessary.

This solution to Tinder’s problems is actually quite elegant. The catalog mentality is stifled and by mining into a user’s circle of friends, overtly sexual messages are also limited if the CMB user is reasonably prudent with her social media friend choices. A guy sending a dick pic or an overtly sexual message is going to think twice if the woman of his digital (double entendre, right there) affection is connected to his friends. The “he’s a creep” story gets started that way.

CMB won’t be a big online dating app. It will attract the smaller number of users who have patience and who are serious about their dating efforts. It won’t make it big, like Tinder, because of incredibly short attention spans, the need for instant gratification, and choice addiction. Should, mirabile dictu, CMB become huge, some of my faith in humanity will be restored.

Next up to take on Tinder’s problems is Bumble. It’s quite recent to the dating app market. Also, it’s founder and creator actually got her start over at Tinder. There was a messy breakup and the Bumble founder went on to do her own thing which was, of course, Bumble. The young woman wanted to create a “respectful” online dating app experience. So she implemented a couple of key features to make the experience better for women.

First and most importantly, once a mutual “like” has been established, the woman must send a message within 24 hours or the match vanishes, poof! Forever! If the guy is really patient, he can extend only one match for another 24 hours. That’s some pressure, right there. Like with CMB, this might serve to nudge women along to actually reach out first, something that is mostly lacking on Tinder where the assertive guys reach out first with often sexual forwardness. There is some very interesting and perceptive commentary on Bumble from the Red Pill guys over at Reddit.

CMB and Bumble have something in common regarding their user profiles. Unlike Tinder (created by men), the other two apps have fields for education, occupation, and employer. Those apps were created by women. The young woman behind Bumble actually described that app as being more feminist. I’ll write a filthy limerick for the first commenter who spots and describes the cognitive dissonance there.

Where all three dating apps succumb to human nature is that only a relatively small percentage of men are perceived as physically attractive to women. Given that CMB only presents one match at a time, there can’t be a quick dismissal. The two individuals must carefully consider if a message is going to be sent. But Tinder and Bumble allow for a quick transition to another profile. Worse, Bumble forces the woman to make a further decision if she is actually going to send a message to the fellow with whom they have a mutual match. It’s an extra level of filtering and that’s not necessarily a good thing considering that girls tend to look for a reason to reject a guy.

This extra scrutiny required by both CMB and Bumble makes the education, occupation, and employer information more important. The guy might not be the most attractive physical specimen but those three pieces of information could sway a girl into creating a match or sending a message. This is hypergamy at work. “Well, he’s losing his hair but look at his thick and wavy occupation! His bulging college degree! He drives such a great employer!” You get the idea without me mashing up too many more awkward analogies.

To be fair and honest, I have not used any of these online dating apps. I have researched and read the news reports and user reviews. Tinder and CMB are available for both the iPhone and Android phones. Bumble is currently available on the iPhone. Please note that there is currently another Android app called Bumble but this is not the online dating app.

Technology in the dating sphere is responding to market forces. Some of those forces are based on our biology. This is why there are photos in the online dating profiles. We respond to a person’s looks, for better and worse. Some of those market forces are based on social expectations, hence Bumble’s feature that mandates a woman sends the first message. But in the end, biology always wins.

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

The Protection Factor

Some time ago, a tweet arrived from DateMe Kenya:

Ladies! Before starting a new relationship, ask yourself Will he protect you? Will he respect you?

The idea that a man should protect a woman is a social expectation likely based on a large amount of hard-wiring in a man’s brain. It’s interesting to note that the tweet originated from an African dating website, a vastly different place than the locales from where most of my readers are ensconced. But the Tweet brings up a common theme in regards to how men and women relate, regardless of the continent and culture. Fundamentally, we’re predictable as a species. Unfortunately, contemporary social expectations too often conflict with our biologically-based behaviors. This conflict is terrifically amplified in the context of attraction and dating. This is because attraction to the opposite happens between our ears, the most private space we have.

The expectation and instinct to “protect” women fits quite nicely into hypergamy. A tall, strong man with access to resources and with the ability to charmingly influence others is a genetically attractive man because he has the power to protect. The Tweeter in Africa reinforced that with the first part of the question in the Tweet. Despite all the jawboning about feminine independence, women are frantically concerned with their security. Independence and security are often at odds. As humans, we need each other.

White knighting also fits well with that social and instinctual need to protect women. Back when the social Back when the contract between the sexes was still viable, coming the aid of a woman was perfectly reasonable even if there was risk involved for the man. But that social contract is badly broken so white knighting is a ridiculous throwback from history. But as the need to protect women has an instinctual element to it, the white knight phenomenon will continue to exist even if the woman is behaving atrociously. For example, witness the 20-something crowd in a popular nightclub and how certain girls exploit potential white knights by acting childish and immature with impunity.

There are organized efforts to exploit the urge to protect women. Bystander intervention programs are being introduced at college campuses to address the sexual assault . Such programs encourage young men to help stop sexual assaults on girls by getting involved in individual male/female interactions. The New York Times has a good story on this . Some will argue strongly that these programs are nothing more than cock-block training. But consider the upside, if Frank the freshman can save a buddy from the possibility of a false accusation by intervening at the right time, Frank is showing some serious loyalty to his buddy.

Back when I was plugged into the dating matrix, dates were a way for me to find ways to protect that particular woman through some type of assistance. But looking for protection opportunities on a date put me a in a terrible frame to generate much attraction. I instantly became a helpful older brother. That urge to protect stifled my charisma. When I suppressed that protection urge, I found that going out on dates to be a much more pleasant experience. I was enjoying the company of women and it showed. It took awhile to unplug myself but when I did, I stopped some unhealthy dating habits such as white knighting.

I urge men to be extremely circumspect when the urge to protect a woman arises, especially on dates or at live singles events. The social contract between the sexes is broken so men no longer owe their time and effort to come to the aid of some random dame in need. There is also the issue of assuming that a woman can’t take of herself. Two generations of strong and independent women have been fiercely stating that women are strong and independent. Men should listen to that and act accordingly by judging the circumstances carefully. Short of being the recipient of violence from a stranger, today’s woman can handle herself and her problems without a man’s protection. Besides, she always has the government.

[If you liked this blog post, please click the Donate button or support me through my Patreon. Your support is excellent motivation!]

Post Navigation