Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Has punting ruined my dating game? - anyone else experienced this?  (Read 3073 times)

Offline belamy85

According to the theory it can include rich men, socially famous men, athletes, men which lookswise would be considered the top end, men in positions of power to an extent which are far above what the average male would possess.

No hope for me then  ;)

But thanks for such an interesting answer. Signing up to this site has been an education in more ways than one.

Offline willie loman

No it blinking well wont!, three i joined were men only!!!

Pwerhaps i ought to take up needlework embriodery or jam making;!...


exercise classes, language classes, cookery, the list is endless, woman are social, and joiners, ive even got offers in church, the only activity where men outnumber women is diving holidays. i never tire of saying, a man who has a social life, will have a sex life, as for the original question, punting helps you to be a bit more ruthless/realistic, if the girl strings you along, move on quickly.

Offline Payyourwaymate

No hope for me then  ;)

But thanks for such an interesting answer. Signing up to this site has been an education in more ways than one.

No problem, this is not all women though. It's just in the social media consumerist western world we live in it might seem like it is.

Online sparkus


exercise classes, language classes, cookery, the list is endless, woman are social, and joiners, ive even got offers in church, the only activity where men outnumber women is diving holidays. i never tire of saying, a man who has a social life, will have a sex life, as for the original question, punting helps you to be a bit more ruthless/realistic, if the girl strings you along, move on quickly.

This is basically true.  Though you do have to be truly single, most of these women will expect that of you and it's not going to be knickers round her ankles at first sight, so the emotional and time investment involved excludes the attached.

Offline advent2016

I've seen a whore once or twice a week since the 90s (last year about once a month) and have mostly had a GF at the same time. They generally move on and another moves in or I break if off. Current one does what she thinks is GF sex (occasionally) BJ and missionary / doggie/ cowgirl and she seems happy enough to cook, clean, wash, iron and be seen with me.

I've never really used dating apps except for POF, Foxy, EH and FB dating often they are full of scammers, or need too much investment of time to get a nil result.

I tend to use normal chat to people I meet.

If there was a UKP guide to good dating apps / technique with high margin for success I'd follow it.

Offline Home Alone


exercise classes, language classes, cookery, the list is endless, woman are social, and joiners, ive even got offers in church, the only activity where men outnumber women is diving holidays. i never tire of saying, a man who has a social life, will have a sex life, as for the original question, punting helps you to be a bit more ruthless/realistic, if the girl strings you along, move on quickly.

That sounds like a lot of sense to me, willie.

However, the perspective of - this! mid-70s bloke - is that I've made a lot of female friends over the years: girls I was at College with, former colleagues and quite a few who were the wives/partners of mates, colleagues, etc, are now single women, mainly widows, with whom I'm still good friends on a social level. But that's the nub; at my age - which many of them are, +/- a year or two - they've got out of the way of participating in the sexual activity that I still enjoy, pandemic permitting, with the more 'mature' - AW Stated Age in their 40s - SPs.

So that's what I do: meals out; occasionally, a - frustratingly chaste  :thumbsdown: - couple of days visiting a woman I've known for ages and with whom I genuinely get on.

Then I come home and start a trawl through AW!

Offline Jay72

It’s a no-no talking about sex before meeting anyone from a relationship app like hinge. But I’d expect to get to last base by the third date perhaps...if I’m not there by date 5 I’d be like meeeh.

I’m newly single but have had a few relationships the past few years. Think now is a seriously good time for dating - lot of pent up demand for a relationship! And, at the end of the day, imo relationship sex is way better than pro sex.... I do worry a tad about 50 and falling out of many women’s dating age range though - not far away for me; so ultimately looking for someone for the long term now.

Offline Disco dave

It’s a no-no talking about sex before meeting anyone from a relationship app like hinge. But I’d expect to get to last base by the third date perhaps...if I’m not there by date 5 I’d be like meeeh.

I’m newly single but have had a few relationships the past few years. Think now is a seriously good time for dating - lot of pent up demand for a relationship! And, at the end of the day, imo relationship sex is way better than pro sex.... I do worry a tad about 50 and falling out of many women’s dating age range though - not far away for me; so ultimately looking for someone for the long term now.

Not tried hinge so cant comment on that. Tinder/badoo and pof i havent had a first date or meet where it hasnt ended in sex. You are right the approach is never about sex when you first chat, i try and get their number as soon as a i can and get off the app onto a telephone/facetime. So much easier so cut through the standard crap on chatting on apps and straight to the lets meet.

As for the age dont worry, as long as you present yourself right you can land whatever you want.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2021, 08:40:09 pm by Disco dave »

Offline NigelF

Im in my 50's so maybe age is a factor here too. Maybe my expectations are now too high. Punting means I can choose from a plethora of nubile young 20-30 year olds and Ive got used to how they look and feel. Im also used to the matter of fact way a WG treats sex as something that is just a normal everyday occurence.

Ive realised Im really choosy on the dating apps too - I genuinely dont find the majority of the women of my age range attractive. Probably 1 in 20 catches my eye. Most women I find attractive seem to be around the 30's-40's age range.

Your nearly 20 year relationship is what’s done the damage to your dating game, mainly because you’ve been out of practice, especially when it comes to the early stages of modern dating.

As others have said, punting should be an advantage if anything. You’ve suggested that punting might have made your standards too high which isn’t unreasonable but I don’t think that’s the case. Only fancying younger women in their 30s or 40s is extremely normal for a guy in his 50s. Only fancying 1 in 20 is rather low but if that’s women in their 50s or older then I’m not surprised at all.

I don’t know about Hinge but on Tinder being a bit fussy can actually give you a bit of a boost in terms of the Tinder algorithm.

I totally get that most women that are serious about you long term aren't going to put out on the first date

It’s true that many are afraid to be viewed as “easy” or a “slut”, especially if they’re looking for something long term with you but if they know sex is what’s necessary to keep you interested in them, then most will be happy to oblige. If they don’t, then that suggests they’re not that into you.

Last date that looked like it was going well - we got to five dates - and got to the snogging and hug stage has just binned me after I told her I wanted to go to the next stage and actually make love to her soon. I mean... thats not unreasonable, right? She told me she didnt feel ready as she didnt feel enough of a connection yet. Did I force things here?... after five dates?

Five dates is definitely not too soon. However, telling her you want to go to the next stage is not sexy or attractive (albeit how you said it does make a difference). It is much better to just invite her round to yours and escalate from the kissing than to talk about or imply sex (unless it’s part of flirting that’s being reciprocated or at least well-received).

. Maybe I'm on the wrong dating app? I use Hinge mainly at the moment.

I’ve heard fairly good things about Hinge, even from those just looking for something casual however I’d still recommend Tinder because that is more a hook-up app so sex is more likely albeit there are plenty of women on there looking for something long term or ratherplenty who claim to be - as I’ve suggested above, if they’re really into you, most will fuck on the first date or at least the 2nd or 3rd.

My experience of Tinder is similar to that of the poster above in that I find it’s rare for my first dates not to end in sex and of those the majority can be turned into friends with benefits but they certainly don’t last forever, especially if you don’t put in effort to maintain them.

But this time round Im wondering did I have my strategy right - should I front load the fact that sex is an important part of something I need in a partner early into the dating chat and how do you do that without coming across as just a serial shagger. Is there a strategy to find the women that place a high priority on sex. How do you filter them/find them.

If you’re finding that Tinder and in-person flirting and escalation is not successful on the first or second dates then you may well want to start saying that you’re just looking for something casual at the moment (you may want to add a caveat e.g. until the right woman comes along) - either in your bio or probably better just after asking them what they’re looking for because then you’ll weed out many of those who aren’t willing to have sex early on. You will also put off some who would have been willing depending on how well you got on in person but that’s a price worth paying to reduce the amount of the time you waste on those who won’t have sex.

Being seen as a serial shagger is not necessarily a bad thing, it means numerous other girls have found you attractive and that you likely have other options (so they have competition). It’s not good to be explicit about it but if they get an inkling/assume it then that’s often a good thing. Often their main worry will be that you’ll just hit it and quit it. But if you’re pre-emotively clear about not just looking for a one-off/one night stand but seeing each other repeatedly then it should be fine.

Maybe I do need to try some of the more sexually motivated apps like Tinder and see where that leads. Im on Grindr which Ive not been too impressed by so far. Most of the women on there are ugly as fuck or are confused that they have signed up to a hook-up app and think its just for normal dating.

I see you’ve clarified that you meant Blendr. I suppose it may have even more of a hook-up reputation than Tinder although if so that would still be mainly due to gay men on Grindr rather than anything else.

You should stop taking written claims about looking for serious relationships so seriously. Some write it to avoid being labeled a slut by guys who recognize them (and tell others), to avoid being labeled as a slut by you, to weed out “creeps” (which isn’t the same as a guy with a high sex drive) etc etc.

Most women will have sex early on with the right guy. If you ask them what they’re looking for, they say long term, you say casual but they’re still fine to meet (which does occasionally happen) then they’re usually down to fuck.

Im struggling to find a date that is both attractive, intelligent and fun that that actually has a decent sexual appetite. That likes touch and massage and regular sex and is happy to place it as a priority in her life.

My experience of dating apps is that you can usually find someone who will tick some of those boxes but it’s very difficult to find someone who ticks all. There’s either a reason they’re on the app or they have so many better matches they certainly don’t need to bother swiping or talking or meeting you. I don’t think dating apps are the best option for long term relationships. As others have suggested, I’d recommend real life/your social life for that. However that’s not to say apps can’t work, especially if you get a lot of matches (as more options means higher chance of finding someone good).

Ive seen some suggestions here on trying seeking arrangements but to my mind that just seems like paying over the odds for an escort.

I strongly agree. I can see how there can be value compared to long escort meets but I don’t care for such escort meets and would rather see a civvie for that kind of stuff.

The SA fans will say that sugar babies provide much better “service” than the vast majority of escorts but it obviously takes quite a lot of effort (and money) to see one, particularly a good looking one. Presumably the effort is still lower than dating apps and the attractiveness of the girls you meet will be quite a lot higher (especially at your age, unless perhaps you look really good for your age) but I’d still rather see civvies to avoid having to pay and to avoid having that kind of relationship dynamic.

. The only one I MIGHT bother signing up to in future is that one where only women can message, because in practice that's how it works anyway.  In all my years on various sites I think I only ever went on a physical date with 2 women and both were from her messaging me, I'm sure I've never arranged a single meet based on me messaging someone (out of hundreds). In fact I can barely even recall getting a reply, let alone a date, let alone sex.

You mean the one where only women can message FIRST - which is Bumble. While it sounds good, especially since women so rarely send the first message on other apps (and are so relatively unlikely reply to your first message), in practice it doesn’t make much of a difference, especially since they usually just say “hi” (something most guys get crucified for when they do it).

You’re definitely right that the woman sending the first message is a great sign (it usually means they’re really into you) but it’s par for the course on Bumble so doesn’t mean anything unless they write a good message (and ideally one that is unique to you). My experience of Bumble is that it’s inferior to Tinder in terms of actually meeting up, it has less women on it in total and if a woman is on Bumble it’s not unlikely she’s on Tinder as well.

Anyway, are you sure your photos are as good as they could possibly be? Success in online dating, especially on apps, is 95% down to your photos even as a guy.

Offline NigelF

It's not a thing. It's a theory that fits the facts in the minds of men who want there to be some kind of reason or rationale why they can't get what they think they should be entitled to.

Hypergamy very much is a thing and it’s a theory that has a lot of evidence behind it. There’s academic research, surveys and now plenty of big data e.g. from dating apps. I’ll provide a little in this post but I’m more than happy to provide plenty more evidence if you want it.

Hypergamy is an important factor in dating but it includes many components (although that does somewhat depend on how you define it) and it’s far from the only factor. However you are correct that it’s significance is overstated by many, especially those in the “red pill community”.

The fact is that people are individuals, and whilst some traits are more widely found attractive, these things aren't universal and different things matter to different people at different times. Why did Jessica Rabbit marry Roger?

This is definitely true and understated by those who focus solely on hypergamy. However stating exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean the rule doesn’t exist. It may be a loose rule but many of those traits which are widely found attractive are close to being universally attractive.

If you want to talk percentages in relation to dating then the simple fact is this...if you don't talk or engage with women then your success rate will be zero. The more times you engage with people the greater chance you have of finding someone you hit it off with.

How engagements with others has changed in this post covid and app-savvy world is a different questions but the fact remains....sitting on your arse and bemoaning things gets you nowhere.

This is also definitely true but the success rates between two different guys (who talk to/engage women the same amount) is often very big. If you come across as weird or particularly creepy, then your success is going to be virtually nil. The same is true if you’re ugly or in a wheelchair etc. You can say “ugly” is subjective which is true but in most cases there is far more agreement than disagreement when it comes ratings of attractiveness. Interestingly, if you are polarizing then that can be an advantage because it’s the girls who are really into you that tend to matter the most (but if you’re just polarizing in the sense that some think you look awful and some OK then that’s not good enough to be an advantage).

It’s also true that women class way more guys as ugly than men do women (unsurprisingly). When women rate men only 1 guy in 6 is considered “above average” in an absolute sense (source: data from tens of thousands of people on OKCupid plus samples of random social media users to check that guys on OKC aren’t just more likely to be bad looking for whatever reason - see the book Dataclysm by the co-founder of OKC).

Anyway, I don’t know why you’ve mentioned people who just sit on their arse and don’t bother trying to engage with women since that doesn’t seem to apply to people in this thread. Indeed this thread is mostly full of people who have tried quite a lot but with minimal success.

e.g. this guy
Signed up to so many over the years and the "80% of women competing over 20% of men" syndrome mentioned above dominates every time.

An even better example of a guy doing a lot of engaging with women (plus far more than just that) is this guy from a different thread (note that I’ve edited his quotes for brevity):
Guys you are giving advice but you know nothing about my situation.

I have been looking for 10 years and tried everything from dating site, exchange group, speed dating, tinder, study psychology to meet girls, PUA course and practice, street / shop games to ask numbers... really I tried really really hard.

And let's be honest, at some point, when you see no results, you have to stop. No point to keep trying after trying over 10 years. Movies and cinema and popular belief is that everyone can have someone somewhere. The reality is not that bright. Some people are attractive and get lots of girls, majority are average, and a minority don't get anything. I belong to the later one.

So for my situation it's much better to pay for a punt instead of trying over 100 girls to get 1 date and at the end hear she just want to be friend!
To be honest, I started punting 3 years ago. I was over 30 and never managed to have a gf for more than few weeks.
Barry I had few coach and did pua game for few years. I approached many thousand of girls and there was period were we went with players out for 10h a day, 7 day a week.

I did get numbers. I did get date. But it never went much further. The truth is that girls value physical attractiveness as much as guy. Most semi successful players are at least average or they have some edge such as being tall.
If you are short and non attractive, it's very very hard to get anything.

Clearly his success rate is much lower than the vast majority of guys who’ve done similar. Of course the above is “cold approaching” which obviously has a much lower success rate than if you know them at least somewhat or you share a social circle etc but he’s tried that too (plus he’s tried Tinder as well, albeit with a seemingly defeatist attitude):
I'm decently confident and I have lots of female friends, or at least acquaintance. I have a good social life and go out with friends few times a week.

I've been hearing over and over about advice that I just have to keep trying and it will work.

You know what, last year, just to prove to my friend his advice was wrong, I did everything he recommended to be more popular on tinder. I adjusted name, age, description, posed for pictures, created some cool hobbies, paid for the premium account.
And still nothing. I only match with adverts and girls who liked by mistake.  I ended up having an argument with him because he said I was ungrateful from his help. But what help? It didn't produce any results!!!
Life is short. If I see a single attractive girl of course I'll try. Of course I ask for numbers. Of course I always message back on tinder when there is a match. And of course when I get a number or Facebook I ask the girl out..... and of course I'll escalate (get closer,try kiss, etc.) If I get a date.

For you to understand the level of difficulty I have:
Tinder:
I must need to do about 500 like to get 1 match. That's the type or ratio I have. And out of these matches, 70% of the time I get unmatched immediately after.
So when I used tinder with the improved profile and picture about 3h/day doing likes, in a week I only had 2 girls who were chatting with me. We never manage to meet as they refused or unmatched me after.

Street game:
I use to dress up (even tried with costume like Barnet for a while) and with some players we spent days (10-12h/day) on the street, shops, clubs, pubs talking to girls. We walked from shop to shop, commercial centre to centre, pubs to other pubs on evenings to meet as many girls as poasible.
Out of 100 girls meet, I would get maybe 1-2 phone numbers. Out of 30 phone number, 15 would be fake numbers and 10 would only answer sporadically. Out of the 5 who would meet, 4 of them would only want to be friend. I would probably end up dating 1 out of 30 numbers I get.

That's how tough it was for me. I had many coaches who all told me It's in my mind. Change this. Change that. Just talk to them. Just try. Etc. Etc.

These guys always had better results doing the same thing of course. That's what I've seen.

Have I mentioned I've been doing the game for almost 10 years? And results didn't improve much?

You can read the full thread here (and also see posts from other punters in similar situations plus my advice for him which gives an insight into how much importance I place on hypergamy):
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=204769

Every time you see someone and think "why is she with him and not me" the answer is not because he has more money, or a bigger cock or a nicer car...but because he talked to her before you saw her.

To say “every time” is obviously total rubbish, gold diggers and the “relationships” that have come out of SA (as evidenced in this thread and elsewhere on this forum) are proof that sometimes it is because another guy has more money (and is willing to spend it on her).

However you’re right in the sense that money isn’t a big factor for most women (but of course it’s still true that the vast majority of women marry across and up the socioeconomic hierarchy and men across and down). Also it’s hard for women to even know how much money you actually have, so while signs of wealth such as a nice car can sometimes be more important than actual wealth, it’s still not a big deal. If money was so important, I’d have hotties throwing themselves at me left and right and I know others who would too but don’t. That’s not to say money is unimportant though, I noticed my Tinder matches go up when I included exotic holiday photos and my car. There’s also plenty of non-anecdotal evidence for the importance of wealth:
External Link/Members Only

For evidence from Tinder showing the very strong correlation between income and “likes”, see the first graph here:
External Link/Members Only

Also see the first table for strong evidence of hypergamy from Hinge. You’ll see that the top 10% of guys get 58% of the likes, while the bottom 50% of guys have to make do with only 4.3% of the likes. That’s hypergamy right there.

Of course men are hypergamous too (something “red-pill” guys almost never seem to talk about) but much less so than women and they care about less criteria too. You’ll see from that table that the bottom 50% of women get 7.9% of the likes. Not only is that almost twice as good as the equivalent men but because men vastly outnumber women on dating apps, spend more time on them and they swipe/send a lot more likes, those women still get a lot more likes in total than the vast majority of guys.

Despite that being on blog about fairness, I don’t think it’s necessarily unfair, it’s just evidence of vast inequality but just because that exists doesn’t mean things are unfair. Indeed one should accept things for the way they are and guys shouldn’t use this data as an excuse to do nothing/give up, instead it should be used to tailor one’s self-improvement and approach.

I agree that the importance of having a big cock is pretty much laughable.

To say the reason a guy got the girl instead of you is because he talked to her first is also rubbish. There are loads of guys who’ve tried and failed only to see other guys try after and succeed. You can see this frequently in bars and clubs but also frankly anywhere. What you’re saying implies that being first is more important than what the girl thinks of you which is obviously laughable.

I know most people who bang on about hypergamy overly focus on money but I notice you’ve also focused on some of the least important aspects of hypergamy. Things like status (whether that be social status or fame etc) and looks are usually far more important than money.

Outside of that, things like personality and “game” (or ability with women or whatever you want to call it) are also important. However such things are usually less important than looks, there’s ample evidence for that on dating apps but also according research too, which reveals a likely “minimum threshold” of looks before personality even becomes a factor. This would also blow a hole in your engage with more women theory:
External Link/Members Only

I’m happy to discuss the limitations of that study and provide many more if you want to discuss further.

As you suggest, in dating for men playing the numbers game is very important however as I’ve pointed out, it’s far more than just a numbers game and things like hypergamy are definitely real and not insignificant.

Offline Jay72

I’ve had a few years now to perfect my profile, take good photos etc. And right now I’m getting very high quality matches (compared to when I first started post divorce). So make sure you have good photos, preferably in locations that are appealing (eg on holiday), and, if you don’t have any, then develop some interests.... coming across as cultured and educated is very appealing to women (as well as being good conversation starter). And I wouldn’t deny being successful is either.

I’m on the apps for a relationship - can imagine it being much tougher trawling for sex on them.... Tinder is probably the one that, while Bumble and Hinge are the apps for relationships.

If you do use Bumble, one good tip is to delete your profile every now and again.. at the outset you’ll get much more likes and that dwindles away over time.

Offline Payyourwaymate

Hypergamy very much is a thing and it’s a theory that has a lot of evidence behind it. There’s academic research, surveys and now plenty of big data e.g. from dating apps. I’ll provide a little in this post but I’m more than happy to provide plenty more evidence if you want it.

Hypergamy is an important factor in dating but it includes many components (although that does somewhat depend on how you define it) and it’s far from the only factor. However you are correct that it’s significance is overstated by many, especially those in the “red pill community”.

This is definitely true and understated by those who focus solely on hypergamy. However stating exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean the rule doesn’t exist. It may be a loose rule but many of those traits which are widely found attractive are close to being universally attractive.

This is also definitely true but the success rates between two different guys (who talk to/engage women the same amount) is often very big. If you come across as weird or particularly creepy, then your success is going to be virtually nil. The same is true if you’re ugly or in a wheelchair etc. You can say “ugly” is subjective which is true but in most cases there is far more agreement than disagreement when it comes ratings of attractiveness. Interestingly, if you are polarizing then that can be an advantage because it’s the girls who are really into you that tend to matter the most (but if you’re just polarizing in the sense that some think you look awful and some OK then that’s not good enough to be an advantage).

It’s also true that women class way more guys as ugly than men do women (unsurprisingly). When women rate men only 1 guy in 6 is considered “above average” in an absolute sense (source: data from tens of thousands of people on OKCupid plus samples of random social media users to check that guys on OKC aren’t just more likely to be bad looking for whatever reason - see the book Dataclysm by the co-founder of OKC).

Anyway, I don’t know why you’ve mentioned people who just sit on their arse and don’t bother trying to engage with women since that doesn’t seem to apply to people in this thread. Indeed this thread is mostly full of people who have tried quite a lot but with minimal success.

e.g. this guy
An even better example of a guy doing a lot of engaging with women (plus far more than just that) is this guy from a different thread (note that I’ve edited his quotes for brevity):
Clearly his success rate is much lower than the vast majority of guys who’ve done similar. Of course the above is “cold approaching” which obviously has a much lower success rate than if you know them at least somewhat or you share a social circle etc but he’s tried that too (plus he’s tried Tinder as well, albeit with a seemingly defeatist attitude):
You can read the full thread here (and also see posts from other punters in similar situations plus my advice for him which gives an insight into how much importance I place on hypergamy):
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=204769

To say “every time” is obviously total rubbish, gold diggers and the “relationships” that have come out of SA (as evidenced in this thread and elsewhere on this forum) are proof that sometimes it is because another guy has more money (and is willing to spend it on her).

However you’re right in the sense that money isn’t a big factor for most women (but of course it’s still true that the vast majority of women marry across and up the socioeconomic hierarchy and men across and down). Also it’s hard for women to even know how much money you actually have, so while signs of wealth such as a nice car can sometimes be more important than actual wealth, it’s still not a big deal. If money was so important, I’d have hotties throwing themselves at me left and right and I know others who would too but don’t. That’s not to say money is unimportant though, I noticed my Tinder matches go up when I included exotic holiday photos and my car. There’s also plenty of non-anecdotal evidence for the importance of wealth:
External Link/Members Only

For evidence from Tinder showing the very strong correlation between income and “likes”, see the first graph here:
External Link/Members Only

Also see the first table for strong evidence of hypergamy from Hinge. You’ll see that the top 10% of guys get 58% of the likes, while the bottom 50% of guys have to make do with only 4.3% of the likes. That’s hypergamy right there.

Of course men are hypergamous too (something “red-pill” guys almost never seem to talk about) but much less so than women and they care about less criteria too. You’ll see from that table that the bottom 50% of women get 7.9% of the likes. Not only is that almost twice as good as the equivalent men but because men vastly outnumber women on dating apps, spend more time on them and they swipe/send a lot more likes, those women still get a lot more likes in total than the vast majority of guys.

Despite that being on blog about fairness, I don’t think it’s necessarily unfair, it’s just evidence of vast inequality but just because that exists doesn’t mean things are unfair. Indeed one should accept things for the way they are and guys shouldn’t use this data as an excuse to do nothing/give up, instead it should be used to tailor one’s self-improvement and approach.

I agree that the importance of having a big cock is pretty much laughable.

To say the reason a guy got the girl instead of you is because he talked to her first is also rubbish. There are loads of guys who’ve tried and failed only to see other guys try after and succeed. You can see this frequently in bars and clubs but also frankly anywhere. What you’re saying implies that being first is more important than what the girl thinks of you which is obviously laughable.

I know most people who bang on about hypergamy overly focus on money but I notice you’ve also focused on some of the least important aspects of hypergamy. Things like status (whether that be social status or fame etc) and looks are usually far more important than money.

Outside of that, things like personality and “game” (or ability with women or whatever you want to call it) are also important. However such things are usually less important than looks, there’s ample evidence for that on dating apps but also according research too, which reveals a likely “minimum threshold” of looks before personality even becomes a factor. This would also blow a hole in your engage with more women theory:
External Link/Members Only

I’m happy to discuss the limitations of that study and provide many more if you want to discuss further.

As you suggest, in dating for men playing the numbers game is very important however as I’ve pointed out, it’s far more than just a numbers game and things like hypergamy are definitely real and not insignificant.

Incredible post  :hi:.

Online sparkus

Every time you see someone and think "why is she with him and not me" the answer is not because he has more money, or a bigger cock or a nicer car...but because he talked to her before you saw her.

I often think that but not so much comparing myself to 'him' but just wondering how they met.

Offline JontyR



Hi NigelF, thank you for your considered response (which I've removed not for any other reason but for space).

My posting was made out of concern for the quoted poster. I have seen several chaps disappear down the path of blaming everyone else for their own deficiencies rather than owning them, adjusting and improving yourself and your lot.

In the same way googling your symptoms of a runny nose and the squits can in weaker moments to be convinced you have bubonic plague some of these theories really don't help people.

And that leads to the one illustration which I obviously didn't explain well enough as  I think you took a little too literally. No - talking first to a woman isn't an important thing. But again I've got mates who comment on a girl who they have never even seen before and comment on "why is she with him?" when what they mean is "why is she with him and not me?".

The whole theorizing around this can lead to obsession, and the people who go on about it really evangelize about the whole thing. And I don't think it lends itself to a positive conclusion. 

Most of these blokes  also seem to have a real entitlement issue. Consciously or subconsciously they act like if they play enough good guy cards they deserve a shag. Or if they follow all the advice on a youtube channel then they should have women dropping over at their feet. Really...it generally reads like an updated version of an advert for Spanish Fly in the classified section of a porn mag with Mary Millington on the cover and is appealing to the same audience.

The chaps you quoted elsewhere seem particularly obsessive. My advice to them would be to throw the books away, stop trying so hard and stop acting so weird before you get arrested or placed under a restraining order. Don't pretend to be someone else that you think might be more attractive. If you can't get invites out from your networks then join some clubs. Where is arises have some conversations. Enjoy these activities for themselves rather than what they might lead to. Smile a lot. If you are joining a club which is activity based don't be afraid to make a fool of yourself. Show enough interest in the person you are talking to so that they open up and show you what they are like. Even if this means that you lose interest then its not a waste of time. It may lead to something else with someone else.

The fact they can't keep a girlfriend makes me think that what they presented and what they are are two different things.

It is an unfortunate truth though that there isn't someone for everyone. But you have to take a certain amount of responsibility for your success or otherwise.

Honestly whenever I hear these theories and their adherents my eyes glaze over. Reason? Well I'm not averse to fucking married or attached women and when you are spunking up the guts of someone who is married to what those evangelists would be idolising as "Alpha" you sort of wonder how that works?

Offline NigelF

Hi NigelF, thank you for your considered response (which I've removed not for any other reason but for space).

My posting was made out of concern for the quoted poster. I have seen several chaps disappear down the path of blaming everyone else for their own deficiencies rather than owning them, adjusting and improving yourself and your lot.

In the same way googling your symptoms of a runny nose and the squits can in weaker moments to be convinced you have bubonic plague some of these theories really don't help people.

And that leads to the one illustration which I obviously didn't explain well enough as  I think you took a little too literally. No - talking first to a woman isn't an important thing. But again I've got mates who comment on a girl who they have never even seen before and comment on "why is she with him?" when what they mean is "why is she with him and not me?".

The whole theorizing around this can lead to obsession, and the people who go on about it really evangelize about the whole thing. And I don't think it lends itself to a positive conclusion. 

Most of these blokes  also seem to have a real entitlement issue. Consciously or subconsciously they act like if they play enough good guy cards they deserve a shag. Or if they follow all the advice on a youtube channel then they should have women dropping over at their feet. Really...it generally reads like an updated version of an advert for Spanish Fly in the classified section of a porn mag with Mary Millington on the cover and is appealing to the same audience.

The chaps you quoted elsewhere seem particularly obsessive. My advice to them would be to throw the books away, stop trying so hard and stop acting so weird before you get arrested or placed under a restraining order. Don't pretend to be someone else that you think might be more attractive. If you can't get invites out from your networks then join some clubs. Where is arises have some conversations. Enjoy these activities for themselves rather than what they might lead to. Smile a lot. If you are joining a club which is activity based don't be afraid to make a fool of yourself. Show enough interest in the person you are talking to so that they open up and show you what they are like. Even if this means that you lose interest then its not a waste of time. It may lead to something else with someone else.

The fact they can't keep a girlfriend makes me think that what they presented and what they are are two different things.

It is an unfortunate truth though that there isn't someone for everyone. But you have to take a certain amount of responsibility for your success or otherwise.

Honestly whenever I hear these theories and their adherents my eyes glaze over. Reason? Well I'm not averse to fucking married or attached women and when you are spunking up the guts of someone who is married to what those evangelists would be idolising as "Alpha" you sort of wonder how that works?

Ah right, yes I strongly agree with pretty much everything you’ve just said. My advice to the guy I quoted was quite similar to yours.

I do think quite a lot of guys need some of the info contained in the “red pill” as many are just sleepwalking through life and could do with waking up and smelling the coffee before they make too many bad decisions but it’s also just as important to move on from it because those who get stuck dwelling/obsessing over it often become worse people not better (as you suggest).