The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

“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:
RedPillTESS

RedPillTESSa
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

TinderLogo

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!]

Where Be The Men?

I’ve had a few recent phone conversations with a Miami-based matchmaker, Dan Silverman. Unlike the vast majority of matchmakers, this is a guy. Also making him rare in matchmaking circles, his paying clients are men. Yes, heterosexual men. Dan got his start in the dating coach business and has branched out into matchmaking. He’s been in the dating advice business for quite a few years. He knows his business well and has been successful at it. This shows his advice works. It works because he accurately knows the predictability of human beings in the context of attraction and dating.

In our conversations, he indicated one of the challenges he faces in his business. His problem is not women. Actually, he has a surfeit of single women. For his live singles events, he has a veritable plague of single women. The problem is men. This is not a problem of individual men. Dan’s problem with men is the general nature of contemporary men. The Y chromosome cohort just isn’t social enough and this is not healthy for the singles business. It’s also not healthy for singles trying to meet the opposite sex out there in meet space without any help.

Having a talk with a professional and successful dating information expert confirmed what I have learned about post-divorce single men. Too many of these men are simply not visible to women because they are socially isolated and when they do get out and about, they are invisible to women. I’ve covered both topics and will continue to do so.

What makes this more significant is the downstream impact of masculine social isolation and invisibility on dating professionals. Dan the dating coach and matchmaker is certainly one example. The masculine pathologies also affect speed dating organizers. I have been asked to attend those events for free in order to fill an available empty seat for guys. At the time, I found that to be rather astounding. But through my research, I learned at the time about masculine social isolation. This meant the lack of men attending made unfortunate sense.

As for the matchmaking element of Dan’s business, the same types of problems exist for him. A bit of the of the difficulty lies in the fees involved. Good matchmaking is not cheap. The process requires time, effort, and the ability to understand and analyze people. Knowledge and time are quite justifiably worth the expense. Understandably, not every man can afford the fees. But once Dan hooks a potential client, it’s not hard to get that client to sign a contract. It’s finding those potential clients that presents the problem. Fortunately, matchmaking is a growing business.

Dan’s personality is very outgoing. He learned through his dating coach services that approaching women in person leads to success. With that in mind, he has absolutely no problem finding single women to add to his database of potential dates for his own clients. He knows his marketing strengths and wisely capitalizes on them.

“But where are the men?” asks Dan when he’s scouting for potential clients. That question is also asked by so many women who are far more willing to go out and be social or even hire a matchmaker. Dating coaches ask that same question. Before that question can be effectively addressed, it’s extremely important to rephrase it to make it more accurate:

“Where are all the suitable and attractive men?”

Even in a social environment where men actually show up is invisibility is a problem. The typical night club swarmed by hopeful young men is no guarantee that the typical young women will actually see such men. Women of a certain age typically do the same thing. They simply don’t see the men that are out in public. In both these instances, it’s a matter of the men not making the effort to stand out. Pick-up artists (PUAs) encourage men to “peacock” with clothes and style so that they stand out from the great mass of indistinguishable men. It’s sound advice.

It’s almost amusing that women seek out all sorts of advice and pay dating coaches. Women can certainly learn a thing or two about being more feminine. But until the men work on themselves by being more social and less invisible, all the self-improvement of women is all for naught. As a bonus, Dan the matchmaker and dating coach would end up doing more relationship and marriage coaching.

[If you liked this post, please click the Donate button on the top, right of this page or support me through my Patreon efforts. Many thanks]

Guys, Prioritize Your Efforts On Yourself

In my ongoing research efforts to find good information about attraction and dating for the post-divorce crowd, I often turn to Reddit, a vast collection of news stories and subsequent comments. In particular, this subreddit, The Red Pill, contains hundreds upon hundreds of discussion where guys are brutally honest about attraction, dating, and masculine self-improvement. This part of the Internet is not for the faint of heart. It is also quite public. Anyone can read what is being said, regardless of membership status.

Because of the strong feelings and very direct words, this subreddit – with over 130,000 members – receives some very direct criticism and there have been calls to shut it down. This means that essential truths are being presented and discussed and such truths are so uncomfortable there are calls for censorship. This fundamentally means that this subreddit is a go-to place to read what men are saying honestly to each other, particularly about women, dating, and relationships.

A recent topic discussion raised an important issue of how a man must prioritize his efforts at “fixing” things. The white knight (profanity-laced page, cool!) instinct is strong in men and when confronted with an issue faced by a woman (or women), a man is sorely tempted to attempt to fix the problem. This includes attraction and dating issues. The very solid subreddit post, by PemBayliss directly and cogently addresses this very issue. I’m highlighting some of the more relevant text but readers can view the entire post by clicking the link just above. My own comments are in boldface.

Women have problems with dating and sex. And they are tough problems.

But they’re not your problems.

Let me explain.

Take your average woman. She’s a 6 in attractiveness — attractive enough to get a male 7 as a boyfriend. She’s also attractive enough to get male 9s and the occasional 10 for sex, but getting commitment from one of them is never going to happen. Come on guys, you know these women. You know 25 of them in real life and you go to school or work with at least 10 of them.

She’s got a tough row to hoe, a needle that is very, very difficult to thread. She has to find a man she’s attracted to and who is dominant and confident, able and willing to support her and sire/father her children. She has to find a man whose clothes she wants to rip off and whose cock she wants to suck twice a day; but who she’s also willing to pad around an apartment with in her fuzzy slippers and sweats. She has to find a man she really, really wants sex with; but the catch is that the man also has to be one who really, really wants to keep her long term.

Her prime problem is that almost all the time, she can find men who fit one bill or the other, but not both. Most of the men she can find are either (1) hot but don’t want to stick around after they fuck her a few times; or (2) want to be her boyfriend and will offer a relationship; but she doesn’t want to fuck them at all because it would be like fucking her brother or her bestie.

She’s in a tough spot.

But… and pay attention here. All that is not your problem.

The author has summarized a woman’s attraction and dating dilemma quite nicely. This dilemma is sometimes played out in the rather cynical game of Fuck, Marry, Kill where girls get together to rate men. It’s extremely important to understand that there is a separate category for sex and another for marriage. This is the woman’s dilemma stated succinctly through a parlor game. This dilemma is exacerbated by a dual message that women, especially young women, receive from social expectations. Have sex with the bad boys, marry a stable provider. It’s more tersely and severely explained in the four words, “alpha fucks, beta bucks”. Sheryl Sandberg in her book “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead” even admits it:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

Here we have a successful executive exhorting the dating dilemma at full volume. She’s telling young women to sow their wild oats sexually, just as young men are biologically driven to do. But Sandberg is completely blind to the biological realities that men and women are different. A woman’s biological motives are very, very different than a man’s biological motives. To make the dilemma worse for younger women, consider this Twitter hashtag that is percolating through the Twitterverse: #nohymennodiamond.

This only describes the nature of the woman’s dating dilemma. The other part of social expectations, as well as an element of biology, is how men are expected to respond to their dating dilemma. We men supposed to help in some way. The subreddit author presents this well:

Society and the culture tells you it is your problem. You have to offer yourself up to be her Boyfriend, because that’s how you’re going to get sex. Society tells you this is your problem because our hypothetical girl is Not Happy, and it is men’s job to Make Her Happy. What’s more, you’re told that if you Make Her Happy then She Will Make You Happy (“happy” being you will get your dick wet).

Well, no. No, being a Boyfriend will not Make Her Happy. You undertaking herculean effort to satisfy her will just make her less happy. Your beta boyfriends don’t enrapture her with joy; you just piss her off.

Stop trying to solve your dating/sexual problems by taking on and trying to solve HER problems. Her problems are not your problem to solve.

This is crucial for men. The white knight instinct must be completely stifled. In effect, a guy shouldn’t be a schmuck.

Men, YOUR dating/sexual problems will be well on the way to being solved when you focus on yourselves, your wants, needs, hopes, dreams and desires. Your dating/sexual problem is that you are not awesome and your lives aren’t what you want them to be. You’re overweight, you don’t eat well, and you don’t take care of yourself. You don’t exercise, you don’t take care of your body and you don’t dress well. You don’t look and feel your best. You don’t like your job or you’re not all that good at your job. You don’t have anything in your life you really enjoy being or doing, just for you.

You don’t need to be nicer. You need to hit the gym. You don’t need a girlfriend; you need more men around you to sharpen and hone you. You don’t need to spend time figuring out how to be what she wants; you need to spend more time deciding who you are. You don’t need to spend money on her; you need to get some better clothes and a haircut.

Her problems are not YOUR problems. Let her figure out that Chad’s not coming back. Let her figure out how to get commitment from a suitable man. YOU need to figure out how to be the most awesome man you can be. When you are, then you’ll be the one who decides on commitment or not; you’ll decide how and when and where your resources are best allotted.

But the thing is, it’s not my problem to solve [her dating problems]. And it isn’t yours either. Identify it. Mull it over, empathize if you want. But don’t try to fix it, solve it, resolve it, change it, alleviate it, or wish it weren’t so. Just don’t. Because you can’t alleviate it one bit. You cannot change it. Wishing it away is totally ineffective. The ONLY thing you can do is to get better yourself.

Here’s a great irony to all this. If a man does help a woman with her dating dilemma, he’s helping her to be more attractive to other men rather than working on his own attractiveness. So, the schmuck helps some dame have a higher sexual/relationship market value and along comes Chad Thundercock to sweep her off her feet. Or, sweep her onto her knees. No, the man must work on himself first and work on himself for only himself, not to impress some mythical, unicorn of a woman.

[If you likes this blog post, click the Donate button or hit up my Patreon page]

 

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,605 other followers