"The Sexodus: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society"

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I very much agree. Who else can such men turn to. All too often they'll hear the very well intentioned, but ultimately as much use as bewbs on a bull "just be yourself". If being oneself worked these guys wouldn't have an issue. For me it's up there with telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

Again IMH - and I'm loathe to add another term to the list of medicalised mind states - many of these chaps are suffering from a subdivision of social phobia to varying degrees and with various reasons behind it(autism spectrum, social interaction stagnated in a pre adolescent state kinda things). Then again is the mainstream psychology discipline even looking at it in this way and are there therapies out there? I mean beyond general therapy(which no doubt would be useful for some). Though if I just wanted to rack up the notches I'd be asking a PUA type long before I'd be asking a mainstream therapist. The former are on the ground as it were with tried and tested(if longwinded) theories and practices. I might well need the mainstream shrink after I got through with the notch journey mind you.

In one way PUA bootcamps are following some aspects of phobia therapy by forcing the men to interact with the object of their phobias by approaching as many women as possible. And I could see how that could work to lower the agitated state. It's the ancillary stuff that is the more worrying for me. The process, the "red pill" stuff. Fine for otherwise mentally healthy guys who just need to get over the hump of talking with women, but not so fine for those with more underlying problems, where this could set the stage for obsessive behaviour and a very rigid worldview.

You see this with some of the more honest "gurus" themselves with their collating of approaches, bangs etc and a few who are more honest who say that they can't ever really let go emotionally with a woman. They're always thinking of the process, the next one. The guy Roosh behind Return of Kings, a site that has gotten some blasting around here(and easy to see why) has spoken honestly on this very subject. He has said he can't quite settle no matter how sound and gorgeous the woman is. The deeper he feels himself getting in the more he wants out.

It would also depend on what a guy wants to get from it. The removal of approach and interaction phobia so he can engage with women and the world in a more healthy way, fine. Racking up notches on the bedpost forever looking for the next perfect approach and bang, not so fine IMH. And I'm not talking about the women here BTW, women have the choice whether to shag someone or not. I don't buy into the "a PUA tricked me into bed" victim stuff. At any point in the interplay the woman can choose not to fall on his mickey. I mean the men caught in that mindset and how that could negatively impact their lives and worldviews on women.

Those worldviews are pretty plain to see on PUA forums and blogs and missives. Basically Women(tm) are narcissistic, hypergamous and untrustworthy with an expiry date and you have to see the matrix to be able to deal with them and here are examples of hypergamous and untrustworthy Women(tm) etc. Surprisingly, as quite a number of these dudes are clearly intelligent guys, they seem to miss the possibility that they're actively preselecting for these type of women . There is a huge amount of confirmation(and cultural) bias going on.

Great post there, Wibbs.

I definitely fall into this bracket. I'm a fairly shy person and I've had to move around a lot because of my career which has exasperated the problem. I was offered a free PUA course by a Brighton-based artist but I backed out at the last minute. I just didn't like the idea of "putting on a show" just to get a woman into bed. It just didn't feel right. Perhaps I should have taken it, I don't know.

Leeleather wrote: »

What "show" do you need to put on to get a woman in bed? Learn how to bring out your natural high status personality and ando I traction with a woman is you enjoying yourself. When I was chatting up women, it wasn't "work", it was fun, perhaps that's the problem. You don't know how to have genuine fun when chatting up women. You care too much what they think of you. One exercise I did was to approach women with the constraint that I wasn't allowed talk. It's an exercise whereby it is vurtually impossible to successfully chat up a woman so all you can really do is amuse yourself and have fun. Its a a good training drill for those who are outcome dependent. After doing this it became easy to walk over and approach women with the ability to actually use words.

What do you mean by "natural high status personality and ando I traction"? I think the latter half of that quote is a typing error but I can't discern what you mean.

Leeleather wrote: »

What "show" do you need to put on to get a woman in bed? Learn how to bring out your natural high status personality and ando I traction with a woman is you enjoying yourself. When I was chatting up women, it wasn't "work", it was fun, perhaps that's the problem. You don't know how to have genuine fun when chatting up women. You care too much what they think of you. One exercise I did was to approach women with the constraint that I wasn't allowed talk. It's an exercise whereby it is vurtually impossible to successfully chat up a woman so all you can really do is amuse yourself and have fun. Its a a good training drill for those who are outcome dependent. After doing this it became easy to walk over and approach women with the ability to actually use words.

Just be yourself except funnier, more entertaining, confident and attractive.

Wibbs, there are more people who have problems speaking clearly and confidently than you might think. We are creatures of habit and we sometimes have to keep reminding ourselves to do really basic things. If you haven't been in another person's shoes it can be difficult to relate to certain issues the rest of us have. Talking too fast is almost always considered a negative trait, as is mumbling. If you're able to speak clearly and confidently, trying to improve further is overkill - most certainly. But if you're not quite there it is something that needs to be tackled. Most of the problems guys have is linked to confidence, so eliminating one issue won't necessarily get rid of another. Everything needs to be improved and you need to develop as a person overall.

It's probably fair to say that some men are deluded and haven't had a proper look in the mirror and analysed what they bring to the table. But there are some of us who really do put the effort in and look pretty decent physically and have lots to offer. We just want the best. Yeah egos are involved and validation too, but there is no shame in wanting the best you can get. For every couple of men who do well for themselves there's probably at least one man who settles for less than what he can get. It's usually shy men who are not good socially who are more inclined to do that IMO.

Two of my uncles are noticeably better looking than their wives. The gap is huge in fact. It's something the other women in the family circle have even commented on. When one of them was asked if he was attracted to his other half's personality, he said no. Now granted, they're probably extreme examples, but I'm making sure it doesn't happen to me.

Blured wrote: »

Emphasis mine. This just seems so shallow. IMO "The Best" looking girl at the bar is usually not the most interesting/fun one. I know the general conversation here was about using PUA to get a girl at a bar, but what about settling down with someone. You hardly do all of that based on looks? And would you not consider a relationship with someone you met and really got on it, were attracted to, etc because you though you could get a better looking girl?

I wouldn't want to settle down with someone purely based on looks. The novelty of her being very attractive would wear off pretty quickly if she was an airhead or high maintenance or simply annoying for various reasons. Some men think attractive women are more likely to cheat or be bad mothers, which might be the reason some guys stay away from the prettier ones. If I don't get what I want I'll stay single for life.

Wibbs wrote: »

And again why P? I really can't see how a woman's looks would impact such things.

It's not something I really agree with myself - it's just something I know a certain number of men think. Probably insecurity on their part. An attractive woman will always have admirers and the ability to easily have an affair with a handsome man and be discreet about it. Some of them (the men) probably think all pretty women are self centered and will be worse mothers as a result of that.

Anybody else's guess is as good as mine.

Wibbs wrote: »

I take your point B and would tend to broadly agree, though I would wonder why can't the best looking woman be interesting and fun too? It's not an either or deal IMHO or IME.

Plus attraction can vary so much. Eye of the beerholder and all that. Though it also comes down to the loins too. Interesting and fun and intelligent are givens, but if Mr Willy isn't in play then it's pretty much game over. Then they become friends. For me anyway. Maybe I'm shallow? Maybe I'm honest? I dunno. Answers on a postcard please...

Definitely agree with you, if there isnt sexual attraction there then a relationship isnt going to work.

My main point was about someone not settling for "less" than they can get - if you are with someone who you are attracted to, have fun with, etc you surely dont leave them because you think you can do better looks wise

Yea my point was simply that underneath most people are interesting and likeable when whatever their collection of programmed behaviours and or neuroses move to the side.

Which makes sense when ostracism is (was?) probably the biggest danger for a human. But the tides are obviously changing based on this and modern social habits (or lack thereof).

Pug160 wrote: »

Attractive, desirable women - particularly the ones in a certain age bracket, have lots of handsome guys pursuing them, so the novelty and value of appearance alone probably erodes somewhat. The difference between a woman thinking you're shaggable and actually giving you a chance can sometimes be immense.

The reason for that, I assume, is because women in the most desirable bracket have more filters than other women as they're attracting so many desirable guys (and plenty of undesirable ones too for that matter). There seem to be other quirks more associated with pretty women - at least from what I've observed. For example, I've noticed that they're more likely to form a romantic relationship with someone they've got to know over time, perhaps in a social circle or at work (that's just my own observation mind you). That could be related to the more extensive filters they have in place. I do agree with some of the research that suggests that most couples are on a similar level appearance wise, but it doesn't tell the whole story - not by a long way.

Wibbs wrote: »

There may be another factor too I reckon. Yes on the surface very attractive women seem to have lots of options and yes they will tend to get much more attention, but their numbers of good men as options may be remarkably low as a percentage of that attention. Maybe even lower than a plainer woman. They're more likely to get attention from "players" and indeed friendzone types and more men who are just seeing the visuals and nothing else. Over time that can make them quite defensive in social settings and more sound lads may think "oh oh ice queen/hard work" and not bother. So guys already known from within their social circle have been pre checked as it were, for arsehole factor.

Very attractive men would in general have an easier time as it's still the cultural standard that men approach women* so they at least have more choice. The attractive woman is usually the approached, so that's one less filter.

Yeah the two above points made by Pug and Wibbs are very on the money in my opinion. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of couples where the woman is attractive and the man perhaps less so come about through these scenarios, ie, she has known the guy through work or friends and therefore feels far more comfortable with him than the masses of guys that hit on her on a regular basis. Plus as Pug says, good looks are probably ironically enough not as big a deal for her, as she is probably immune to some degree from constantly having handsome player types try it on. As opposed to for instance a plainer-looking girl who isn't used to the attention and as soon as a cute guy chats her up she's completely taken in by the 'romance' of it all, hook line and sinker.

As Wibbs mentions, attractive ladies often get hit on/surrounded by just the type of guys they don't want to attract and therefore get a bit on edge if they don't know the person that well. So sometimes when meeting them cold they can seem a bit bitchy. Again, another reason why PUA seems so appealing to many, the premise of 'seduce super hot babes within half an hour' etc.

Of course these statements are not always true, you naturally see attractive men with attractive women all the time, the latter have eyes just like anyone else. Plus, really handsome men are so rare (at least in Ireland), then if you do see the odd one, he does tend to clean up, if he is that way inclined.

However, under the right circumstances (generally over longer periods of time rather than quick meetings however) average looking men can really do well with striking women, especially if they treat her like a human being and don't put her on a pedestal and imply she is flawless. Sometimes even being not as attractive as a man can be advantage in these situations, as the very handsome men often have rather 'flat' personalities as they are used to women coming on to them on looks alone.

Coming back to the main point of the thread, I certainly don't think it's as big a problem as claimed in the article. I wouldn't be 100 percent sure about getting married and I think more and more men are coming round to the fact that it's an institution that favours women, but I don't think huge amounts of men are shying away from females either.

There may be more shy/awkward/overly nice males around now then there used to be, but I don't imagine there's a huge difference. Most men who so desire will end up with a woman eventually, indeed many of my male friends, whom I would not consider to be particularly 'good' with women, are with someone who is more objectively attractive than they are. Now this may be for financial reasons or whatever, but that's another argument.

I think the main point I agree with is the sending of mixed messages to men these days. The feminist-influenced media subliminally implies that you should be overly nice and not stand up for what you believe in as far as I can see. And that sensitive is the way to go. Well yes and no. In my experience, the best way to connect with women is to be sensitive, considerate and a gentleman, but not allow yourself to be pushed around either and have your own opinions. Of course, it is easy for me to say this here, sometimes real life can be trickier...

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I always think of it in terms of friendships. If it was a potential friendship, most people wouldn't want the person to defer to them on everything because it would be boring. If you have to remind yourself to have your own opinions around women I think it's a sign ye mightn't be ready for a relationship (not speaking of you personally).

Very much so, and I in any case could not be with a woman who expected me to constantly defer to her and go along with everything she said. There are enough men who will do that for her and enough women who won't expect that from me for us not to be together, simple as.

Mind you, some people simply do want, both in friendship and relationships, someone they can boss around. Often they'll hang/go out with a person simply because he or she agrees to everything they say or propose. So even though I agree with your opinion and would very much advocate it, it's definitely not true 100 percent of the time.