The Frequent "official" Origin Of My Recent Failures With Women

[cantara]

Base your opinion on market feedback.

If you haven't had many girlfriends or lays then you probably have low sexual market value.

I'd disagree in general with that, at least absolutely speaking in terms of SMV for which the amount of lays and girlfriends alone is a very weak indicator. I know people with low SMV who have had a lot more lays and girlfriends than guys I'd consider 6-7 with more options and hence higher SMV than the ones who just take any option they have.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

I'd disagree in general with that, at least absolutely speaking in terms of SMV for which the amount of lays and girlfriends alone is a very weak indicator. I know people with low SMV who have had a lot more lays and girlfriends than guys I'd consider 6-7 with more options and hence higher SMV than the ones who just take any option they have.

Then if they have low sexual market value then how do they get laid so often?

And if someone is high social market value then why cant they get laid?

 

[cantara]

Then if they have low sexual market value then how do they get laid so often?

And if someone is high social market value then why cant they get laid?

Because I think (almost) anyone can get laid, even guys, not just women. But as you wrote yourself: it's a lot about standards which - in your case- seem to have changed.
Standards can be some sort of self-protection too, I guess, for example if you only deem women "good enough" that even most handsome guys cannot always get. This is why I think knowing your own league is pretty important, since it will help you decide what is "reasonably ambitious", as I'd like to put the attitude I want to have. However, as written before: I'm self-aware AF, but I refuse to believe the girls (or 90% of them) who dignify me with a like on T represent my female looks-equivalent.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Because I think (almost) anyone can get laid, even guys, not just women. But as you wrote yourself: it's a lot about standards which - in your case- seem to have changed.
Standards can be some sort of self-protection too, I guess, for example if you only deem women "good enough" that even most handsome guys cannot always get. This is why I think knowing your own league is pretty important, since it will help you decide what is "reasonably ambitious", as I'd like to put the attitude I want to have. However, as written before: I'm self-aware AF, but I refuse to believe the girls (or 90% of them) who dignify me with a like on T represent my female looks-equivalent.

But as I remember you have insanely high standards way beyond your sexual market value.

Even if you do get one they will feel like they are settling with you.

Its harsh to say but we should be honest with each other here.

 

[cantara]

But as I remember you have insanely high standards way beyond your sexual market value.

Even if you do get one they will feel like they are settling with you.

Its harsh to say but we should be honest with each other here.

Again, the one you rated a plain jane I find highly attractive, so I'm not sure about that, as much as I appreiate honesty.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Again, the one you rated a plain jane I find highly attractive, so I'm not sure about that, as much as I appreiate honesty.

Plane Jane was harsh - she was perhaps a 7.

People on this forum know I rate women less harshly than other guys on this forum.

 

[cantara]

Plane Jane was harsh - she was perhaps a 7.

People on this forum know I rate women less harshly than other guys on this forum.

I wish all people (including myself and women for men) were like that.
Interesting side note: she jumped from a 5 to a 7 in your book. I've noticed that most other people are not as consistent as I am, although a gap of 2 points for the same person is very rare.

 

[Calchas]

We all easily blame the "social networks" for this image-obsessed culture. Maybe we should thank social networks for allowing women to state what they really want. Hunks.

Girls 16-24,go for looks and popularity...Women 25-35, go for socioeconomic status and general influence.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

I wish all people (including myself and women for men) were like that.
Interesting side note: she jumped from a 5 to a 7 in your book. I've noticed that most other people are not as consistent as I am, although a gap of 2 points for the same person is very rare.

She was the least attractive out of all the women you showed me.

I'd have to see more pictures to give a definitive answer.

 

[Roberto_72]

Girls 16-24,go for looks and popularity...Women 25-35, go for socioeconomic status and general influence.

This might have been true in the 50s, 60s, 70s. More generally, when women had no ecobomic independence. Do you really think a 28 years old girl would prefer a fat, short manager to a handsome, common employee? Not in Italy.

 

[CopeForLife]

@Xander94 @Patrick_Bateman

https://incels.me/threads/female-twitch-streamer-life-on-tutorial-mode.36214/

f***

 

[Calchas]

This might have been true in the 50s, 60s, 70s. More generally, when women had no ecobomic independence. Do you really think a 28 years old girl would prefer a fat, short manager to a handsome, common employee? Not in Italy.

Younger girls can fall in love(they use feeling over reason)...older can't(they use reason over feeling).

 

[davesmith420]

I matched with this girl on Tinder. Her and I mutually follow each other on Instragram and she always seems to "like" pictures of me. I messaged her and the conversation when to sh*t quicker than the sinking of the Titanic.

 

[Roberto_72]

Younger girls can fall in love(they use feeling over reason)...older can't(they use reason over feeling).

So, now "older" girls (25+) can't fall in love?
May I ask you how old you are?
Because honestly I don't wanna have a conversation with a kid on woman psychology. Please

 

[DoctorHouse]

I matched with this girl on Tinder. Her and I mutually follow each other on Instragram and she always seems to "like" pictures of me. I messaged her and the conversation when to sh*t quicker than the sinking of the Titanic.

@davesmith420, lets see the transcript of the conversation and see where it went wrong.

 

[Patrick_Bateman]

Younger girls can fall in love(they use feeling over reason)...older can't(they use reason over feeling).

Older women can’t fall in love because they’ve had too many dicks. Seriously. The saying «the first love is the sweetest» comes to mind.

A conservative amount of dicks for a 25 year old is 30, that’s 3 per year after she’s sexually active. Far from first love.

Studies show that people with high slaycounts have a much higher rate of divorces compared to people with fewer lays, and we all know which gender is most likely to iniate a divorce.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Older women can’t fall in love because they’ve had too many dicks. Seriously. The saying «the first love is the sweetest» comes to mind.

A conservative amount of dicks for a 25 year old is 30, that’s 3 per year after she’s sexually active. Far from first love.

Studies show that people with high slaycounts have a much higher rate of divorces compared to people with fewer lays, and we all know which gender is most likely to iniate a divorce.
View attachment 85290

I wonder if us guys cant fall in love now we had too many pussies??

 

[IdealForehead]

Older women can’t fall in love because they’ve had too many dicks. Seriously. The saying «the first love is the sweetest» comes to mind.

A conservative amount of dicks for a 25 year old is 30, that’s 3 per year after she’s sexually active. Far from first love.

Studies show that people with high slaycounts have a much higher rate of divorces compared to people with fewer lays, and we all know which gender is most likely to iniate a divorce.
View attachment 85290

I don't have the link right now, but the CDC publishes stats from anonymous sexual surveys they run every few years to track STD risks/trends.

Here's a representation of the % of women/men who have had claimed to have more than 5 partners in the past year. Even if you assume the women are falsely lowering their numbers (on an anonymous survey), the men show it's still not a dramatic number.

Average lifetime sexual partners is somewhere around 4-6 for both genders. There is a small % of people of both genders that sleeps around like crazy.

The higher divorce rates with higher partner counts may simply reflect that people who sleep around a lot do so because they don't have the personality type that is required to "commit" to any one person. In the old days, those people would get married, and stay married, but have affairs. Now they just get divorced.

I'm pretty red pilled, but I'm red pilled by concrete evidence, and there are no sexual surveys that suggest either gender is averaging a 20+ partner count. That's the ultra-slutty/Chaddy minority only.

I wonder if us guys cant fall in love now we had too many pussies??

The same study found higher partner count with men did not correlate with higher divorce rate, meaning men can sleep around and then settle down. But women who like to sleep around never stop wanting to sleep around, and will just divorce any guy they "settle" with.

Also, 300+ page on Afro's sexual failures. Epic.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

I don't have the link right now, but the CDC publishes stats from anonymous sexual surveys they run every few years to track STD risks/trends.

Here's a representation of the % of women/men who have had claimed to have more than 5 partners in the past year. Even if you assume the women are falsely lowering their numbers (on an anonymous survey), the men show it's still not a dramatic number.

View attachment 85294

Average lifetime sexual partners is somewhere around 4-6 for both genders. There is a small % of people of both genders that sleeps around like crazy.

The higher divorce rates with higher partner counts may simply reflect that people who sleep around a lot do so because they don't have the personality type that is required to "commit" to any one person. In the old days, those people would get married, and stay married, but have affairs. Now they just get divorced.

I'm pretty red pilled, but I'm red pilled by concrete evidence, and there are no sexual surveys that suggest either gender is averaging a 20+ partner count. That's the ultra-slutty/Chaddy minority only.



The same study found higher partner count with men did not correlate with higher divorce rate, meaning men can sleep around and then settle down. But women who like to sleep around never stop wanting to sleep around, and will just divorce any guy they "settle" with.

Also, 300+ page on Afro's sexual failures. Epic.

Haha they should do this study with our generation of under 30s.

I think the average would be around 20 these days by 30.

Even if you just got laid once or twice a year for a decade you'd triple those 'averages'.

 

[IdealForehead]

Haha they should do this study with our generation of under 30s.

I think the average would be around 20 these days by 30.

Even if you just got laid once or twice a year for a decade you'd triple those 'averages'.

The internet is corrupting your mind. The internet and social media have been proven to increase perceptions of others' sexual activity levels. For example if you survey kids in high school, they all think their friends are f*****g like crazy, and are embarrassed they are not "keeping up". When if you look at the data, that's true for almost all of them, and very few people are f*****g at all.

Our generation has fewer lifetime sexual partners than our parents. Age of first sexual encounter is stable or increasing not decreasing.

It's just better clickbait to write articles about "hookup culture" (which barely exists) than it is to write about how we're becoming more like Japan every year.

It's all smoke and mirrors that is completely unsupported by the data.