52 comments on “Winning At Life Or Failing At Sex

  1. What about those who fail at both? Case in point: Japanese herbivores.

    “If you care about civilization, something needs to be done to stop this.”

    You can’t really change what women are attracted to, and there’s no undoing the sexual revolution. It’s a dead end.

    • “What about those who fail at both? Case in point: Japanese herbivores.”

      Absolutely. The two correlate more often than they do not. After all, one’s social skills are at the heart of whether one is successful at both “life” (which I guess is meant to be a euphemism for employment or personal wealth here) and at finding a mate.

      I’ve long ago given up on both.

        • “If they correlate so often why do I know so many guys including myself who are successful in life but not sex?”

          Because women are ultra-selective and demanding in modern society in regards to picking mates. ALL males are seen as unworthy compared to the goddess-like stature bestowed to the average woman by female supremacist modern culture.

          The vast, vast majority of women have regular sex with about 10% of the male population. You know, the ones that sexually arouse them. Some of this 10% are financially successful, some are not.

          A large part of this sexual arousal comes from a man’s social abilities. Do you dispute that social abilities play a large role in both a successful “life” (as you’re defining it) and the ability to find a sexual mate?

          In essence, yes, many women are attracted to brainless, violent thugs. Brainless, violent thugs, generally speaking, fail at life if you measure life purely by financial success. Some of these thugs do succeed financially, however.

          Do you honestly think that women are explicitly attracted to poor men?

        • W&N,

          Look at it this way – is it more often one way or is it the other? There may be many guys who are good with women and such at work but there are many more guys who are good with alpha females and are alpha males themselves *at work.* Read forweg’s post carefully, he said “more often than not.”

        • I know a lot of guys who are good at work, make tons of money like myself, and can’t get a woman to look at him unless it’s for a sexual harassment complaint. Women are only having sex with the top 10% or 20% of men. There are a lot more men “successful at life” than that.

        • Considering that no one collects statistics for this sort of thing and even if they were collected, anyone like myself would probably lie, you’re really just guessing. I have encountered too many guys who are in the good at work but can’t ever get laid for it to be just a statistical anamoly.

        • It’s one thing to say it’s a statistical anomaly (which I sort of agree with you that is not the case), it’s another to say that most of *all* men wind up not having sex with women involuntarily.

          Also, sorry to break this to you, but you almost start sounding like a woman, putting everything in binary/multiple choice format. It’s a spectrum. Relax, dude. There are men who are very good at communicating and gaining sympathies from women; there are men who score at times; there are men who don’t have too many options and have to settle for women they don’t appreciate; and then there are men who can’t get any. (We call the above “Betas of differing shades”). Finally, there are men who are hated by most women (“Omegas”). But even Omegas can be further divided into those who are called creeps and those who are sued.

          It’s not like it’s either 1 or 0. You and your friends constitute a very limited subspectrum, but for some reason decide to lump the remainder of Omegas and Betas (which really is a different psychological type) with your group. No, most Betas actually get laid a couple of times a week, with wives/girlfriends they probably aren’t that attracted to, but they go “have sex,” using your language.

          Finally, do you dispute that there are more involuntarily celibate/loveshy men who are flat out socially handicapped than involuntarily celibate/loveshy men who are socially well rounded? Further, do you dispute that there are more men who both have a decent life and have sex regularly than guys who have a good life but are involuntarily celibate? I direct you to the study done by Brian Gilmartin, which I am positive you have heard of/read. Men who are loveshy on average make less money, not more and do not share musical/artistic taste of the majority of society. That was the whole point, that loveshyness often is a particular manifestation of lack of sociability.

          You know so many guys who are successful in life but not sex because of sampling bias. Incidentally, I don’t know that many guys who are like that. I’m also sure your answers to my questions above (taking in all your male relatives into account) would be yes and yes.

        • Also, sorry to break this to you, but you almost start sounding like a woman, putting everything in binary/multiple choice format.

          Stop being such a mangina. The idea that a man who can’t get laid is unemployed and living in his parents’ basement is a lie. I know game ideology says otherwise but it’s just another reason game doesn’t exist.

          Finally, do you dispute that there are more involuntarily celibate/loveshy men who are flat out socially handicapped than involuntarily celibate/loveshy men who are socially well rounded?

          Yes I do dispute it. There is no way an honest study can be done about this. A man who can’t get laid but is otherwise successful at life isn’t going to be honest on a survey that can be traced back to him.

          I direct you to the study done by Brian Gilmartin, which I am positive you have heard of/read. Men who are loveshy on average make less money, not more and do not share musical/artistic taste of the majority of society.

          That “study” if you can call it that was done 25 years ago. Things have changed since then. That “study” also had lots of problems from not having enough samples to questionable methodologies. By Gilmartin’s definition of love shyness I shouldn’t be a sexless virgin yet here I am. And why should we trust anything supposedly scientific from Gilmartin when he wrote an entire chapter on astrology acting as if it had some relevance to real science?

          You know so many guys who are successful in life but not sex because of sampling bias.

          For sampling bias to happen there has to be enough guys who are successful in life but not getting laid in the first place for me to have a sampling bias. We’re real.

          Incidentally, I don’t know that many guys who are like that.

          Of course not. We wouldn’t tell someone like you this information about us in real life. I don’t go around telling people that I’m nearly 33 and a virgin unless they’re in a similar situation to myself.

        • Jesus H. Christ. You’re only 33 and you’re already complaining like an old man! I thought you said earlier you’re in your late 30s, etc. Okay, let me break down your arguments for you again. I’ll do it point by point.

          (1) You didn’t get my point. I was not shaming you about your lifestyle or insinuating that you are a loser because you are not having sex. I would never do that. I am, however, shaming you for a *thinking habits.* You may not be a socially awkward doofus but you *think* like a most stereotypical, uh, girl. You know how stereotypical girls think, right? “Love me, love me not, etc.” Everything is a binary for them. For you, it’s “alpha, alpha-not.” Most people aren’t like that. Just because you’re not having sex doesn’t mean a majority (you claimed it was f–king 80% of the male population!) are not. It equally does not mean those who are, are alpha males. You claimed to be in technology but you are not displaying the rigor of a scientist or engineer.

          (2) It’s your word against my word. No point in arguing about that. However, let’s break it down into 4 quadrants. There are

          (a) men who are good socially and good with women.

          (b) men who are poor socially and good with women.

          (c) men who are good socially and bad with women.

          (d) men who are poor socially and poor with women.

          You claimed that (c) accounts for up to 80% of the male population. Listen to yourself. Read every line above again, and tell me you were in your right mind when you made that assertion.

          (3) The sexual revolution took place before Gilmartin, and sexual promiscuity actually went down after the 90s, so if anything women back in Gilmartin’s days were more promiscuous not less. Isn’t that all you guys are complaining about? That women love riding the “bad boy cock carousel.” Well, they were even more so. Horror.

          (4) How many friends/acquaintence do you actually have? I work in a professional environment and most of the men here are married or in long-term relationships. These are men who did really well in school and would enjoy a good book or a football game anytime over clubbing in the meat-packing district. They are not bad boys or losers or whoever you claim women are exclusively attracted to. I’ve met some of their girlfriends/wives too and they seem pretty normal. Now tell me, why do we have such different samplings?

          (5) Listen. I read your blog because I empathize with some of your frustrations. I too am disturbed by contemporary promiscuity and irresponsibility and political correctness. What I can’t stand is your habits of insisting on black-white binaries. Having black-and-white standards on moral issues is fine. But you’re starting to characterize facts in black-and-white binary terms. Facts are complex. Had they been not, life wouldn’t be so hard.

          You’re actually less annoying than P Ray, who presumes that everything should be handed to him on a silver plate. He complained earlier about modern men having to date non-virgins who may have slept with who he considers “bad boys.” The horror! “I am not getting a nice, pure virgin wife!”

          (5)

    • I don’t have to change what women are attracted to. Once sexbots and artificial wombs are invented women will become obsolete. When women are obsolete they had better be careful or there will be bounties on their heads for their behavior.

  2. I agree with forweg in that it doesn’t always specifically correlate.

    That is, there are guys who are successful financially who are successful with women, and there are guys who are not successful financially who are successful with women. When I used to work at a law firm in Manhattan, I worked with a lot of outwardly successful guys — top schools, top law schools, pulling down 200k. But … only around 10% or so were “successful with women”, meaning they could pull women relatively easily. What I took from that was that even among super-educated guys, there is still around 10% who are in that “sexy alpha” category, and women don’t find them unattractive because they are “nerdy lawyers” (because in women’s eyes that 10% are not “nerdy lawyers” but “sexy guys who are lawyers”). I also noticed that the guys who are in that 10% and who are otherwise smart and educated *tend* to be the more successful, medium to long term, of the bunch *apart* from women as well — that is, they go on to partnerships or become CEOs or something else that is very successful because they have social skills that work also in settings other than pulling women. Note: these guys aren’t all “thugs”, but they are the most socially dominant, socially skilled and confident of that set of guys – and that’s what the women are attracted to.

    As for the other 80-90% of these “worldly successful” guys, getting women in Manhattan was like pulling teeth, and Manhattan is a place with a favorable sex ratio for guys. Hypergamy rules the market, however. Women in Manhattan are often very successful themselves, and therefore are unimpressed, in attractional terms, by other men who are successful. The man needs to be “sexy” and successful for these women to be attracted — or at the very least, “sexy” (which is why some % of even over-educated Manhattan women date unsuccessful thuggish guys — they’re more attracted to the “sexy” than they are to the “successful”. In that sense, some women have become more like men in making attractional choices — not that they find the same things attractive that men do, but rather that some of them are becoming as relatively unconcerned about the “target’s” career/success/standing as long as the “target” is “sexy” (being defined as looks by men, and as “alpha” by women): in other words, a growing group of women will date/fuck sexy alphas regardless of their career/success/standing (as men have always done with hot women). But a significant number of educated women prefer educated men — provided, however, that these educated men are alphas (and there are highly educated men who are sexual alphas … look at Tucker Max, to take one hedonistic example).

  3. It depends on your job. From what I understand, W&N’s job does not require working in teams. He is thus able to excel at it, even though he may or may not be the most sociable person around. But I guarantee you that W&N will not do as well as a buy-side investor or investment banker. It is not coincidence that many of these guys used to be football players and meatheads.

    To Brendan – getting women in Manhattan is not like pulling teeth. In fact they are “easier” to approach for guys described in your paragraph because many of them are explicit in their demand for a materially successful guy and (relatively) few of them fall for the contemporary romance crap. So in a way, socially challenged but financially successful guys have the best chances of getting a date in Manhattan. You mentioned that many of them are financially successful. No they are not. Most young women in Manhattan are interns at places that don’t pay that well (marketing and advertisement agencies, news agencies and “modelling”). The few who are bankers/lawyers are either married (good for them) or desperate because they have outlived their youth. The so-called thuggish guys you mentioned guys aren’t thuggish either. They are more likely hot bartender types kept as boytoys by our banker friends. Just pay some attention to their dynamics with their girlfriends.

    • Yeah I was talking early 90s, when I was working there as a young lawyer, and also mostly about the super-educated women at *that* time — not the interns. Having said that, among the male lawyers I knew who were the same age at the time (i.e., mid and late 20s), there were probably 35% who were married to women they met before they graduated from law school, 10-15% “natural alpha” and the rest were more or less involuntarily celibate most of the time, but had the occasional girlfriend – they certainly weren’t having an easy time with the women of Manhattan at *that* time (almost 20 years ago now). I also didn’t know many female lawyers who were dating boytoy bartenders — for them it was around 35% married to men they knew before law school (typically older than they were and more established), with the rest of the attractive ones split between a kind of proto-“SATC” type lifestyle (SATC hadn’t been aired yet, but it was based on the culture of Manhattan women in the mid 90s) and “holding out” type lifestyle. But, again, that was 20 years ago.

    • What job doesn’t involve “working in teams”? Obviously I have to communicate with other people for my job. Now that I’m self employed I also have to deal with negotiating for contracts, etc. I don’t max out on the socialness scale, but obviously I must have decent social skills. That is unless what is really meant by “social skills” is dealing with women and not actual social skills.

      If by working in teams you mean working with women then obviously not. The field I work in is heavily male dominated. Women avoid it like the plague.

  4. Haha . . . yeah, sorry for talking across your points. Not to sound like a misogynist but when you mentioned attractive women my first reaction was, well, the interns. Now that you mentioned it, I’d say right now about 35-40% of female lawyers are married, another 35-40% have steady boyfriends from an earlier time, and the remainder probably leads a semi-SATC, semi-spinster lifestyle. The more they hold out the more desperate they become.

    For men I’d say 10%-15% are alpha. They will also make partner. Around 65% have wives or serious girlfriends (then by serious I mean dating for a couple of months, that’s the reality in New York) (those already married will likely make partner too, you know, the regimented types) and the rest are on the prowl. I wouldn’t necessarily call them involuntary celibate though, since their dry spell typically do not last for more than a few months, which I think is normal for men between relationships. So I guess the difference is that back in the early 90s it was less likely for men to have entered law school having already married or dating a long-term girlfriend. This might be because more people are taking time off between college and grad/professional school.

    Which actually makes me think – what is the difference between a Beta and an Omega? My gut theory is that a Beta is a person who women find respectable but not necessarily attractive, and Omega is one who women find both contemptible and unattractive. But what are the traits that separate the two? Why do women find Betas respectable but Omegas contemptible? A majority of men are either married or in long term relationships yet they are definitely not Alphas. I would think that they are Betas, with Omegas being the outliers in the other end of the spectrum.

    One last thing

    • That difference in staging could be impactful, I’d agree — most of us in my incoming law firm class were 25ish, with a few folks who were older, having taken a year or two off in the interim (that trend was just getting started, but hadn’t really caught on to the degree it has now), and the latter were actually more likely to be attached than the 25s who had come fresh out of law school and gone to law school directly from college.

      I think the difference between an omega and a beta is that a beta is someone a woman can, potentially, “grow to like”, if the rest of the pieces are in place, whereas an omega is just “not doable”. That is, the beta is not the guy who gets her erotically charged within the first few minutes of meeting her, but if she is in the market for a long-term partner, and he has other features that make him “respectable”, she can kind of “grow into him”. Women who are married, especially older couples, will often say that they “grew attracted to” their husbands as they dated them — it developed over time. Clearly, these guys were not the alpha males who generate the insta-tingle, but were betas who otherwise had enough going for them that the woman would give him a shot. Omegas are the guys who don’t have enough going for them for the woman to give them a shot at growing attracted to them — generally guys who are very socially awkward, I think.

      The key issue today, however, is how many women are interested in “growing into attraction” with guys. I think that the number has dwindled. Today, women want the tingle. Even women who are looking for long-term mates want the tingle, and only really give that up when they see themselves hitting the wall and feel like they are entering a desperation zone (and many women even fight that, remaining loyal to their tingle all along, even if it means being single into their late 40s or perhaps forever). So I think that the market for men who are “acceptable betas” has also shrunk somewhat, or, rather, is a market that women tap into at increasingly older ages. I think this also has something to do with the downward pressure on marriage rates, really.

  5. I agree with you regarding the decreasing lustre of marriage in modern society. There are probably many reasons behind this, some of which are longer-term (the advent of companionate marriage where one marries out of affection), some of which are more recent (the proliferation of the pill and legalization of abortion which takes away the practical cost of having multiple partners before marriage).

    In light of above, I think most women are looking for what you called the “tingle” ever since romantic relationships became the norm. The only thing that prevented women from pursuing such was the social stigma attached to pregnancy out of wedlock and the very real economic pressure on unwedded moms.

    Also, here are my two cents on the Beta vs. Omega divide. Think about it this way. Back in the 50s you’ll have to ask a girl’s dad’s permission before you can ask her out. The dad would’ve probably told an Omega to f— off and stay away from his daughter, while accepting the Beta as the hardworking, upright young man that he was. So Omegas wouldn’t have a real shot even back in the old days. While they are rejected by women today, they would’ve been rejected by the women’s parents back in the old days.

    So one could say that both Betas and Omegas were affected by the institution of companionate marriage, even though Betas still did pretty well up until the sexual revolution of the 60s. Omegas, on the other hand, never had a shot. In fact, for many of them (the socially unsuccessful ones) they probably didn’t have a shot even back in the days of arranged marriage.

  6. “If you care about civilization, something needs to be done to stop this. ”

    There is no reason any man should serve or protect a society that has FAILED to serve and protect him.

    Let it burn brothers…

    Let it burn.

    • I’m talking about saving civilization in general not “Western Civilization” or the crap we have now. I simply have no desire to go back to the caves like women want us to do.

  7. I know it has been somewhat discounted on this site but the guys that get laid, have for lack of a better word some level of game. That does not mean big fur hat and magic tricks. Money is not the issue, the perception of taking care of a woman or situation is. A guy could be flush but not elicit the emotion of a take charge guy. Another guy could be poor but cool enough to get women. Work/professional social skills are not the type of social skills we are talking about. All things being equal money is a big plus, spending it on her like you are trying to buy her is not, unless you have big money. The other thing is to cast a wide net and not be desperate. I believe the most successful guys fail plenty, they just play the game often. Flirting or talking to a many women every week will increase your odds. I heard one guy say (yes online I don’t know him personally) that for every ten women he finds attractive and approaches he only gets a chance with one or two on average. He was just pointing out that he was considered “lucky” with women by his friends but could not talk them into putting themselves out there. He said it was a lot of work for him to “get lucky”.

    If I was younger and actually really wanted a lot of opportunity, I would learn how to tend bar and work one or two nights a week on the side.

    • The opportunity cost of seeing lots of women means that your time is eaten up.
      And while women talk about wanting confident guys they fail to realise that a man of true confidence can just leave when her terms are not favourable to him.
      It says a lot about what many of them consider “winners” when they don’t expect movie stars to get married, only the loser-men.
      With such an attitude they deserve the confident men who leave them at the drop of a hat.
      Never be a woman’s fallback position.

  8. “The opportunity cost of seeing lots of women means that your time is eaten up.”

    – Yes; it’s a personal choice. What is the issue then?

    “And while women talk about wanting confident guys they fail to realise that a man of true confidence can just leave when her terms are not favourable to him.”

    – Unless she’s your daughter/sister/cousin, why do you care?

    “Never be a woman’s fallback position.”

    – Again, why do you care?

    You see, the problem is, and now that I have really come to think about it, I see the statistical fallacy of some of your arguments. You complain about women being picky, etc. and that most men will score, say, one out of ten times. In so doing, you ignore the fact that because in a Western society the man is supposed to initiate romantic contact, by not initiating such contact with most women (and flirt with only 10 at a time!) men too are doing the picking. It also reveals an almost feminine thinking habit – you care so much what women think! Here’s what an alpha will do. He will do whatever it takes to go home with an attractive woman and not be bothered at all if he is her last choice.

    • Mangina detected. Stop feeding attention whores. Stop accepting sluts whom many other men have rejected.

      P Ray got it right, the “alpha” can afford to be as choosy as he wants. He also gets what he wants on his terms, not anyone else’s.

      Consider W&N’s position, if you got shot down by every woman, even ugly ones, would you still try to date them? What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Perhaps he has dabbled in “game” and tried to alter his approach, but it didn’t help.

      I think it is crucial for undesirable males to have foresight about postmodern relationships, and this blog is an eye-opener for many. Why should the undesirable male bother with spending money on dating a woman who has likely been used and dumped by previous alpha male lovers, give up half his paycheck and sire children that may not even be his? Like W&N suggested, sexbots and artificial wombs may make opting out more desirable than shacking up.

      • Alphas benefit when betas and omegas are there to take up the slack, by paying for the women the alphas are having sex with – especially if those women are married to said betas and omegas, but choose to have sex only with the alphas.
        It’s all “personal choice” and “why do you care?” for the people who don’t have legal responsibility or indemnity.
        Also, paying for all the status symbols to show how “alpha” you are and living the lifestyle, when you aren’t alpha, means that you are lining the pockets of the people who want to sell that lifestyle to you. No point paying for uncertainties, and definitely no point paying to give the material advantage to a girl who can then take it and dump you.
        Tell me again, JJ, why should the beta and the omega man help the alpha man?
        What’s in it for them, especially since it is almost certain that any woman they interact with and choose to be in relationships with, has had her brush with the alpha cock carousel?
        If women who have been raped find it so difficult to let go of the experience, is it so much of a stretch to believe that women who have ridden the alpha cock carousel are likely not marriage or relationship material? Every normal guy then just becomes either a fallback position, or is blamed for not being alpha (but his money is accepted, as payoff “for the pleasure of her company”).

        • For the sex? You understand that refusing sex to your husband is ground for divorce for cause right? Money? Not a big deal. Get yourself a prenup. What is the matter with you people.

          Please tell me you’re not looking for some virgin Madonna (in the religious sense, in case you didn’t get) type.

        • You’re a funny guy, JJ.
          You equate “sex” with love,
          and you equate “protection from unfair divorce court proceedings” with “pre-nup”.
          “You understand that refusing sex to your husband is ground for divorce for cause right?”
          Let’s see about this, how many men are willing to get debased in court for this? It’s like telling men, oh, a woman beat you? No problem, just charge her in court.
          Your delusions are very fanciful, so’s your shaming language. You keep asking men to step up to a horrid deal.
          If you say “some men are so bitter they should never have a relationship”, I’ll agree with you if you can also say “women having had the alpha should never have anything less or be alone if you can’t get it”
          Because you’re plainly unreal if you think nowadays men are going to honestly enter into marriage with a woman they have strong suspicions is a whore.
          Looking for a virgin? What’s wrong with that, if you are one yourself. After all, equality is the brave new world.
          Sluts for manwhores, virgins for virgins, what’s wrong with that?
          Unless you think that passing off the sluts to the “so-called” undesirable men will make them automatically commit? Even the beta and omega men have brains enough to realise that when they hit their 30s they didn’t suddenly become more attractive to 30 year old women.
          Again JJ, and you have avoided answering this question,
          Why should the beta and the omega man help the alpha man?

        • I answered your last question. For regular access to sex. What’s wrong with that? And really, in this world, if you are who you claim you are, sex is probably the only thing you can get from any woman in any event, since they find you both morally and physically repulsive otherwise.

          Also, what do you mean by a “whore”? The average woman has fewer than 10 sexual partners. Does that make her a whore? Is that what you spurn? If so, who’s being unreal here?

          Finally, please do not lump the betas together with the omegas. The betas have more in common with the alphas than with omegas. It’s a sinister tactic for men who self-identify as “omegas” to try to shame betas into their allies. In the aninal kingdom, betas are lieutenants to alphas. It is also so in the human world. There is only one CEO per company, but many middle-managers under him. Why would these middle managers prefer the lot of the omegas over the crumbs offered to them by the CEO?

          As long as you settle for a non-virgin “whore” (to use your language) you become a beta and you will be socially welcomed into the world of normal men (to wit, alphas + betas). And I’m just telling you there are plenty of women who will settle for you, as soon as you give up complaining about “equating sex with love” etc. You don’t live in a 19th century pseudo-romantic novel, you know?

      • Question for you Dali,

        Why are you undesirable?

        And weren’t you the pedestaling mangina who had this crazy “pure virgin” fantasy for women (“stop accepting sluts whom many other men have rejected.”) Are you actually bothered that the woman you’re sleeping with had slept with other men before?

        Answer my first question first though. Why are you undesirable?

        • You see, that’s just the issue JJ… I’m just taking my time to build myself up. I don’t need the nonsense that a crazy woman would bring into my life at the moment, and you’re welcome to them. As for false rape accusations, I take plenty of precautions.

          “As long as you settle for a non-virgin”… tell the reverse to a woman “As long as you settle for a beta”

          “And I’m just telling you there are plenty of women who will settle for you, as soon as you give up complaining about “equating sex with love””
          I’m not interested in marrying someone I don’t love, just for sex. How much of a pussy-beggar would that make me?

          “Regular access to sex”… um, after having gone through life without it, what makes you think suddenly offering it to me is going to make me forget what happened? And especially, from people whose attractiveness has dipped, while expecting a greater investment from me than guys previously? I’m not the person they should be asking relationship compensation from.

          “And really, in this world, if you are who you claim you are, sex is probably the only thing you can get from any woman in any event, since they find you both morally and physically repulsive otherwise.” I could pay for it at anytime, but can’t be bothered to do things that have no “value”.

          Lotsa women gonna be single, hope you have time for them all, JJ!

        • My sexual history proves otherwise, but that’s besides the point.

          “Are you actually bothered that the woman you’re sleeping with had slept with other men before?”
          Not really, but when it comes down to determining relationship material, there is no better indicator. No man with dignity would enter a relationship with a slut.

          You are clearly a troll.

        • Read Gilmartin’s book. Both of your moralism mirrors that of the textbook love-shy person. You actually just called a non-virgin a slut.

          This is hilarious. In your world, a girl has to be either a Madonna or a whore.

          Let me also repeat. Women settle for betas all the time. It’s the omegas that they absolutely hate. Please don’t drag our poor beta friends in.

        • Um, yeah, in my world a girl is either a Madonna or a whore, because your chances of having a stable marriage drop precipitously after the first sexual relationship. I’m not “looking for a lay”, which is why I say I’m not after “sex without love”.
          It isn’t rocket science — the girl looking for the best man has to keep trading up.
          With other girls, her included, as a rule the only way to attract that kind of guy… is sex. So, she either steps up or steps off that event. Do you see how harems get formed, or are the principles of competition hidden to you?
          That makes her unable to commit honestly to any one man.
          What makes you think whores make great wives? Honestly, I’d love to hear your opinion, JJ.

  9. We’ll see if my two other posts pass through. That would be the touchstone of W&N’s commitment to open communications.

  10. It would be nice to live in “JJ-world”, where anti-male hysteria doesn’t exist, sluts can make good wives, women have responsibilities to their husbands in marriage, and prenups can protect men from financial devastation in divorce. Too bad we have to live in the real world, where none of those things are true.

  11. Hey white&nerdy… I do agree that this happens. I do have an alternate hypothesis on why it happens. It comes out from how I learned that game is a scam. Let me know what you think of the following hypothesis.

    I believe that the cause&result are inverse. Its not that guys are becoming less-fukable by being better off, but something else.

    You know what the biggest proof that game is a scam is? Because every single “game guru” on the planet, even the “anti-game” gurus, all have the EXACT same ratio of results. They all need to get 11 phone numbers to bang one chick. Every single one of them, no matter if they do completely opposite strategies of one another.

    Furthermore, I’ve heard of a study where they had amazingly attractive guys, nerds, and anything in between, all approaching and asking women out. Guess what? They had roughly the same ratio of success. The truth is NOBODY is getting women effortlessly aside from famous or handsome or ultra-ultra-rich.

    The secret is, they all bust their assess off and get rejected like crazy. The unemployed bum who’s having sex like crazy? Truth is, he’s out 7 nights a week and getting shut down by 10 women a night. I know many of these guys. They’re so addicted to sex that its literally a DAYJOB for them. They’re juggling and answering texts all day, hunting for new prospects… inventing new ways to lie to women etc… etc…

    So… The guys you say got laid like bums when they were bums, but now make a ton of money… Well guess what? They make money by investing money into being productive. Its not that they’re less attractive, they no longer have the time or energy to be investing 6-8 hours a day in pursuing women.

    A guy who works 16 hours a day in his lawyer practice does not have time to invest in pursuing chicks.

    What do you think?

      • Absolutely. Their results are completely random. No gamer can produce an objective test to show that game has any real results whatsoever. All we get from the gamers is bluster. That’s why so many of the gamers are married. They can bluster without having to produce results at all.

  12. I don’t know if there is any proof that women are more likely to have casual sex with guys who are “bums” rather than financial successful guys, but in my experience (if that counts for anything) it rings true. Of my buddies the most successful with women is ironically the least successful financially, and the guy who is the most successful financial is also one of the least success with women. And I’ve seen this in many groups I’ve been in, that the guy who is the best with women is usually in the bottom third financially.

    I think though, it’s more about the men and their priorities. Guys who place more emphasis on getting sex by default place less emphasis on getting rich, and visa-versa. And most women don’t really care about your financial situation when it comes to meaningless sex. I really think it is that simple.

    • No Humdinger, women in feminist societies actively pursue the stupidest, most irresponsible, and most immoral men they can find because this is the optimal evolutionary choice in such societies. I explain why in [url=http://www.coalpha.org/Male-Mating-Strategies-tp5976163p5976163.html]Male Mating Strategies[/url].

      • Your link didn’t work fschmidt, but I’ll give your theory a chance if you can get a working link.

      • OK I found your article now. In a round about way, you are actually are agreeing with my post. But you don’t explain why “omega” (as you call them) males are actually better seducers than “alphas” (as you call them). I said that they are better seducers because of their life priorities and that “omegas” actually take more time and effort to hone their seducing skills.

        I do, however, agree that feminism has something to do with it. It has basically given women a licence to have meaningless sex with financial unsuccessful men. Not that it didn’t happen before feminism, but it would definitely happen more now than it did 50 years ago. Actually now that I think about it, feminism has been a win/win for bums, and a lose/lose for rich guys, both sexually and financially.

  13. I think there is something to be said about how much free time you have in life and your priorities. If you work too much, are fairly low energy after work and maybe want to sleep in longer over the weekends to “recharge your batteries”, then there is a good chance you won’t be able to meet too many women.

    I have quite a few friends who work as investment bankers, private equity people or have started their own companies – a lot of them make early to mid six figures but have literally zero time to date anyone. A lot of these people have either been in a LTR for a very long time now, or if they ever meet a girl, it’s always through a social circle of friends, and even there, it almost always turns into a LTR with the first girl they get along well with.

    I recently quit my job and am in a transition period where I have lots of time. I suddenly find myself texting/calling a lot of girls, spending more time pursuing random frivolous activities, checking out one music night too many and the like. Needless to say, my dating life has been much better in the past month or so, than it’s been for a fairly long time.

    • Yup. That is exactly why I downgraded from audit manager at a big 4, to doing consulting work 30 hrs per week maximum. I’m no longer making 6-figures, but who cares? I don’t have to support anyone, I’ll live longer, and the tax base is strangled just a little bit more.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s