The New Red Pill for Online Dating

With the advent of online dating, Old School PUA tactics have morphed into a new expression of attractiveness, based on three qualifying traits.

Readership: All; single men;
Theme: Dating and the SMP
Author’s Note: This post expands two comments NovaSeeker left in response to Lexet’s post, Charting the Red Pill World (2021-3-26). Novaseeker started drafting this post on 2021-5-17, but left it unfinished. In his absence (due to work), Jack has taken the liberty of finishing this post.
Length: 1,550 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

The New Red Pill for Online Dating (OLD)

In general, guys, there is a large movement among the young away from the kinds of things most of us might associate with “Old School PUA”, a la Heartiste/Krauser/Roissy/Rollo/Roosh/etc. (AKA the “Original Red Pill” or “ORP” from the period from 2008-2018 or so), and towards a different set of practices. I think this change is largely because of a shift in socialization habits in which most young people, women and men alike, are now spending so much of their social lives online that they are frightened to be approached by strangers IRL.

In his post, Charting the Red Pill World (2021-3-26), Lexet described evidence for this shift as a recent emphasis on basic interaction skills.

“The personalities on YouTube who have returned to “tactics” interact and/or coach young men on a daily basis. They are far more in tune with Zoomers than the rest of us. What they are saying is that their subscribers/fans/clients not only don’t know how to talk to girls, but often times, they can’t even hold a conversation with other people! It’s a result of them being raised in a “social media world.”

It’s hard for us oldsters to believe that younger guys and girls can’t even strike up a conversation with someone of the opposite sex. But Lexet provided us with a closer look at the social malaise among the younger set in his Film Review of The Dating Project (2022-2-11). Apparently, there is an overblown emphasis on sex and hooking up, and the accompanying dissipation has brought with it a sense of annui about dating and relationships in general.

The new set of practices is focused much more on…

  1. “Looksmaxing” — This was a sidelight for the ORP but is a main part of current RP due to the rise of apps, all of which emphasize looks as primary.
  2. “Text Game” – The ORP eschewed texting as a rule, which is simply not an option in the current world of online dating (OLD)/dating apps. You need to be good at it!
  3. “Conversion” — i.e., the transition from virtual to real, being able to interact smoothly in the real world.

Of note, that last point is a serious challenge to many Zoomers.

This is in effect a new toolkit, and a different one from what the ORP proposed, because the environment changed dramatically. It’s a new “Red Pill”, and it isn’t really “PUA” at all. It’s just the basic skills young men need just to date successfully in a “normal” (that is not bars/clubs/pickup context) way. Because most of the young set grew up with a solid dependence on the internet, most real social skills are the hardest challenge of all. In contrast, older men, most men above 40, and almost all men north of 45 have had to develop social skills in order to survive.

A couple of interesting viewpoints about online dating for men have been posted over at Aaron Renn’s site, The Masculinist. I’ll use these to form the bases of a couple case studies, to emphasize my above points. Note that both of these guys are Christians.

Case Study 1 — Success

The first case study is from The Masculinist: How to Make the Most of Online Dating (2021 March 25). This article covers a user who has gotten positive, or even great results in using dating apps. (Click on the link to read the details.)

Of note, this guy was rather short by women’s standards (only 5’6″), however, he was well muscled and in good shape, and he has never had any issues attracting women.

First, he “looksmaxed”. That isn’t only about how you actually look, it’s about how you present yourself in the app. After initial lackluster results in terms of women responding to him, he changed the pics in his profile to a set of professional photographer taken pics made during a trip to Europe a few years ago. He is also a generally very fashionable, upscale dresser, and this showed in his photos. After this one change, his responses from women skyrocketed.

Second, he focused on text game, both in his profile text and in his interactions. His key emphasis was on cocky-funny, teasing, hypergamy, light-heartedness, and not being a die-hard killjoy Christian hardass in profile and text.

And he rightly notes that texting has to lead to a fairly swift real life meet (within a week or two), otherwise it generally goes nowhere.

Third, he focused on “conversion” — that is, real life skills in interacting with people, with women, to get better at talking with women and therefore better at the process of interacting with someone in person, once you have passed the app screen.

Finally, it’s notable that the successful guy used Bumble, which is an app that is women-centric in that women have to initiate all contact — men can only talk once a woman has messaged them. So it has the in-built strategy of waiting for women to approach you, once you make your peacock display. The successful dater in Renn’s article did this, because he had the peacock to display, if you will, and notice that he was also indiscriminate — he had no selection/review strategy at all — once he had his pro pics up, he simply “yes” swiped every woman the app sent him, waited to see who approached him in text, and took it from there.

Case Study 2 — Failure

The other article is a negative review of OLD from a guy who wasn’t very successful.

The Masculinist: My Experience with Online Dating (2021 March 22).

Renn’s article explains pretty accurately the algorithms the apps use for matching, and why this is generally terrible for most normal guys.

This guy likely was not nearly as physically attractive relative to the kind of woman he was interested in dating. He was able to date women, but that’s different than attracting women in a dating app environment which, as he says himself, puts you against the best of the best. He almost certainly didn’t spend $500 on professional photos for his app profile like the successful online dater guy did. So he bombed point number 1.

His text game was hamfisted and his response timing was off cue. He couldn’t turn text convos into dates within a very short time frame, so he blew point number 2 as well.

Since he didn’t get many dates, he didn’t have the opportunity to dive into point number 3. So looksmaxxing with the profile images and acing one’s text game are obviously crucial to the process.

Unfortunately, Renn’s recommendation here (date women for practice just to get better at speaking with women in a dating context) seems to me to be a chicken and egg problem — if the guys aren’t getting dates, they’re not going to be getting the experience they need to get better at dating in person. It’s a catch 22 situation for men who struggle in dating, I think. It goes back to Scott’s Trajectories.

Σ Frame Axiom 14, AKA The Law of Trajectories (Scott): What we learn through feedback loops early in life sets a trajectory that we follow throughout the remainder of our lives. It is exceedingly difficult to deviate from this trajectory, but small deviations are possible for a small number of innovative megafaith individuals.

Instead, I would recommend that guys should looksmax physically, and then also presentationally by upping your game with professional photos if you want to do well with attractive women on a dating app (and as the unsuccessful guy pointed out in his post, you can’t even see attractive women on the app unless the app detects that you have a chance with them first).

Conclusions

After reviewing both case studies, we can see that both guys were capable of attracting women outside apps, but note that the opportunities to do so are limited in various ways. So there isn’t really a substantial difference in attraction that accounts for the different results.

The key differences between the two men were in the approach. The successful guy pretty much followed the three points I mentioned at the top, whereas, the unsuccessful guy didn’t make the most of himself in those ways.

In general, I think the successful dater’s approach is valid if you are very good looking and able to display that well in an app (it sure helps if one is naturally photogenic), and then couple that with very good textual and in person charm. That, to me, means a guy who is in the top 10-20%, which I think clearly the successful online dater guy was. I don’t think it’s really very transferable to other guys, at least not most of them.

This entry was posted in Agency, Attraction, Charisma, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Clothing, Determination, Discipline, Fantasy and Illusion, Female Power, Game Theory, Handling Rejection, Hypergamy, Indicators of Interest, Internet Dating Sites, Media, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, Vetting Women, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The New Red Pill for Online Dating

  1. whiteguy1 says:

    Looksmaxing is a thing, I noticed this myself with my online photos and dating sites.

    If any of the men here want some help in this regard (with photos/fashion), you can contact me through Jack. My day job is engineer but I do the professional photography thing on the side, so I’ve got a pretty good handle on this now. (I attacked the problem like a good autist.) The other stuff, well you are on your own there.

    This is a small way I can give back, pay it forward to the men around here who helped me.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Jack says:

    Re: Looksmaxxing in photos.

    During my stint on OKCupid and Tinder, I found a small number of things about photos that made them popular, leading to more likes and matches, and so on.

    — Breathtaking scenic outdoor backgrounds.
    — No glasses.
    — Wearing hats.
    — Wearing brand name sports clothes or athletic attire.
    — Photos in which I looked very angry.

    But other than those things, I was very confused about why some photos were more popular than others. They were definitely not the photos that I felt were my better photos.

    Like

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “Because most of the young set grew up with a solid dependence on the internet, most real social skills are the hardest challenge of all. In contrast, older men, most men above 40, and almost all men north of 45 have had to develop social skills in order to survive.”

    This could serve as an access point for the older men mentoring the younger men. They younger guys need to learn the looks maxing and texting game from the guys who know it well, but they’re still going to need the in-person social skills.

    It’s funny, even though I’m older, I’ve experienced the new 1-2-3 sequence in a roundabout way since 2020 with several of the women that I’ve worked with on Zoom. None of them I’ve met in-person (other than one I’ll talk about below); and don’t plan to, other than possibly platonically as part of the work we do together — classes and coaching. But I know if I did, and I was a ‘player’ (lol, funny just imagining it), I’d have to switch to my social skill set to interact with them. I’ve no doubt I could do that easily since it has been built up over several decades and is well tested in real life.

    One of the women, I did meet personally prior to the pandemic. She and I worked over the phone and on Zoom as I was coaching her in preparation for a particular speaking related project she was preparing for to become certified in. Then, because this was late 2018, I had an opportunity to meet her face-to-face at the classroom when I, as a consultant, every once and awhile made an appearance at a special classroom event as part of my consulting duties.

    What struck me immediately was that she was as good looking in person as she appeared on Zoom. (New rule #1.) At the time, she was 35, but was in-shape, so she looked like a thirty something with a twenty something figure. I look good for my age too, so I showed up ‘handsome’ for my age, and even though I’m quite a bit older than her, I got the idea that she liked it, the older man, in-shape, salt and pepper looks kind of thing women have told me they like in older men.

    Now here’s where it got interesting, I could see that she was visibly nervous just being in real life with me. A weird combo of relieved that I didn’t look like some ‘old geezer dude,’ someone she could ‘admire’ and be seen with to some degree, but she wasn’t sure how to interact with me at first. I put her at ease with some humor (social skill and New Rule #2/3) and she nervously laughed along at first, then relaxed and giggled a lot as I playfully teased her. I imagine she thought to herself, “He’s pretty cool, down to earth, and fun to be around.”

    By the end of the evening in class, we were sitting next to each other and she was seemingly really enjoying it. I said to her, “Let’s go out in the lobby and have a coffee.” (Rule #3.) The place had a little cafe thing, and she quickly grabbed her purse and bounced up ready to go to the lobby area. So there we were, one on one, sitting across a little table with a coffee (me) and a latte (her). Just like old time dating. Of course, that’s where the evening ended since I’m married and we did keep it professional. But I did get the idea, married or not, she’d have considered a “roll in the hay,” if that’s the direction this thing had evolved towards. It appeared she had the tingles going.

    So, not bragging, just saying I stumbled into what this blog post is talking about during one real life occasion. Rules #1 and #2 held, but it was Rule #3 that was the clincher, the in-person chemistry which was led by my SOCIAL SKILLS. Without my ability to carry on a conversation, relax her and get her laughing and enjoying herself, the cafe thing would never have happened; or if it did, it would have ended everything right there. It still took in-person, face-to-face abilities to interact conversationally to escalate things to where, if I was younger and single, could have taken them further; just like in the olden days.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Agreed with the conclusions. I collated these two examples and several more in the comments here:

    Christianity and Masculinity: Online Dating Lessons Summarized (2021-8-13)

    If you do get good professional photos and you generate no interest on dating apps I’d just give up on those. Not worth the time investment if good photos and an engaging profile don’t work.

    Like

  5. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Tanner Guzy’s “The Appearance of Power” is a good book on how to dress well for who you are. His approach is to help figure out how you project masculinity into the world and then from this point give advice on what colors and patterns work best.

    [Jack: Link to Amazon. This book is reasonably priced at $7.10 to $12.67 for a 151 page paperback. Kindle version is $10.49.]

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      YouTube has several videos covering the topic of Tanner Guzy’s book.

      The Philosophy of Masculine Style | Tanner Guzy | Full Length HD (2017-7-13)

      #318 – Style and The Appearance of Power with Tanner Guzy (2020-5-25)

      Style and the Appearance of Power with Tanner Guzy — The Voluntary Hardship Series — Bonus (2021-6-11)

      Should a man care about his clothes? | Tanner Guzy | TEDxRoseville (2021-10-8)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        In the first video, “The Philosophy of Masculine Style”, Tanner mentions taking a developing approach to life, and at 14:00 shows a photo of himself which he describes as a “whole vomit mess” of him trying a bunch of different things regarding masculine style.

        The photo though shows him holding a baby which most likely is his. So I think it’s safe to assume that he was able to attract women and get married well before he developed his views on masculine style as presented in the video.

        The video kind of begs the question of whether having masculine style is an asset to finding a woman to marry. I don’t think so and Tanner himself is proof.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Joe2 wrote,

        “The photo though shows him holding a baby which most likely is his. So I think it’s safe to assume that he was able to attract women and get married well before he developed his views on masculine style as presented in the video.

        The video kind of begs the question of whether having masculine style is an asset to finding a woman to marry. I don’t think so and Tanner himself is proof.”

        We have to remember the context. Context is everything. The context of NovaSeeker’s post is OLD. For online dating, looksmaxxing is the key to get to Step 2, text messaging, as NovaSeeker noted in the post. But IRL, the third step, social skills, e.g. conversation, is where the relationship truly begins. If a man is already meeting women IRL, and he has a fair amount of social skills, then looksmaxxing is less important.

        To answer Joe2’s point about whether Looksmaxxing really matters for marriage, I think most men can attract women and get married, provided that they dig low enough on the SMV totem pole. But to marry well and be content with the marriage is another matter. The more a man develops himself, including but certainly not limited to Guzy’s concept of masculine style, would certainly give him a wider choice of women, and probably a better marriage too.

        I did a little more research on Tanner Guzy, and I found that he is indeed married, twice actually. He has children with both women. He and his current wife appeared at the 21 Convention just last week and talked about their marriage relationship. They mention trust many times throughout the video as being something that draws them together and strengthens their marriage.

        How to Build a High Functioning Marriage in a Degenerate Age | Tanner & Brikaeli Guzy (2022-2-17)

        We don’t know anything about his first marriage, but it was probably before he developed his masculine style that he is now famous for. It’s hard to say what happened in his first marriage, or what could have happened, but I think maybe he could have had better pickings the first time around if he had developed his masculine style first. He seems to be very content with his second marriage, so maybe his masculine style did help him the second time around.

        Like

  6. anonymous_ng says:

    Presuming women are on Tinder/Bumble/Hinge/etc to actually meet men, the following are my thoughts. I don’t actually believe this is true. I believe these days that most women, especially attractive women are on the various online dating sites purely for the dopamine hit that comes from getting attention.

    The only purpose of your photos is to get a match.
    The only purpose of a match is to gain the opportunity to send a text.
    The only purpose of a text is to get a reply.
    The only purpose of a reply is to get a date.
    The only purpose of the date is to get another date, and so on.

    It’s just like getting a job.

    PHOTOS:
    — There is a lot of good advice on how to take good photos for online dating. Apparently, lots of people ignore that advice.
    — You don’t need a professional photo shoot, but if they aren’t at least semi-professional quality in composition and execution with a bit of post-processing to at least color balance things, you aren’t really trying.
    — Cyrano De Bergerac is mostly fantasy. If you aren’t a suit and tie guy, you probably don’t want to go out and buy one for dating photos. Instead, get some nice, clean examples of what you usually wear.

    PROFILE TEXT:
    — Remember the goal, it’s to get a match. There are two schools of thought. One is to eliminate as many as you can up front. So, be polarizing. Show off your MAGA hat, or mention how you go to church three times a week, etc. The other school of thought says to meet up with as many as you can because lots of women will take the lead from the man and you don’t want to miss out on someone who prejudges you. But, also, you get more experience the more you match etc.
    — I’ve gotten much less traction since I got back from Russia and removed all the text from my dating profiles. I’d probably do better leaving the Russian I had up before.

    Given that most people are trying to find love online, there is less competition than ever for the man who has social skills and goes out into the real world to meet people there.

    Social skills are like any other skill, it’s a combination of knowledge and experience, and you don’t get the experience except by practice, and by failing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “I believe these days that most women, especially attractive women are on the various online dating sites purely for the dopamine hit that comes from getting attention.”

      I agree. My guesstimate is that about 50% of women aren’t seriously interested in the quality of men they match with, but they still stick around for the attention/dopamine/etc. I gave some other guesstimates in an earlier comment, and some more stats about Tinder users here.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Jack says:

    By coincidence, secular manosphere site The Red Quest covered the same topic yesterday.

    The Red Quest: The online dating expectations mismatch (2022-2-21)

    TRQ agrees with the first two points in NovaSeeker’s essay. He says,

    “Online dating optimizes for women considering: 1. men’s looks and 2. their ability to engage in mildly witty banter via text.”

    He also gives a couple anecdotal stories that convey (1) the importance of applying actual social skills (NovaSeeker’s point #3), and (2) the importance of having some shared interests/values to facilitate that.

    “It seems that many women aren’t cognizant of the way online swipe pushes women to judge guys based on metrics that may select against what they’re supposedly seeking.”

    Yes, OLD puts hypergamy on warp speed and clouds the usual consideration of compatibility/fit. On this issue of compatibility, the author makes reference to the Meet Cute phenomenon, which I find refreshing but odd for this site.

    “To my knowledge, zero romance novels have the “meet cute” be “I was swiping through online dating and…”

    He goes on to explain further.

    “Hypergamy is often damped down a bit in everyday life because women don’t get exposure to dozens, hundreds, or thousands of men at a time. Online dating ramps up hypergamy because there are so many guys available, but women have way too little information about the guy to judge him. Five seconds with him in a real-world environment will tell her more than 10 hours of chat on the phone.”

    TRQ agrees with what Lexet wrote in his Film Review of The Dating Project about the lackluster social prowess of most younger men and women.

    “Many guys have become too p***y to make the move in the real world, and even many women are edging towards autistic behavior due to excess social media. Talk to real people and you’ll find out that a lot of couples form after one person in the couple, usually the woman, [initiate conversation after] initially disliking or feeling neutral towards the man. Lots of normal people warm up to each other through repeated interactions, that’s why regular parties matter, and that is Festivals, parties, etc. and the network’s power.”

    There’s one paragraph in which TRQ expresses the limitations in IRL meetings.

    “Yet women who say they want to meet dudes organically often aren’t receptive to dudes who try. Paradox! There’s something going on where both men and women want that thing and don’t, some kind of unresolved tension. The West Elm Caleb thing is an example of this tension, and something is happening beneath the surface. We’re getting into murky, Freudian territory, ambivalence, tension, uncertainty: there is also the random element I’ve talked about at length. I’ve had situations where I’ve approached some girl, been blown out, some other similar-seeming guy approaches her later, next week, whatever, she goes for him. And the reverse, some girl is blowing guys out of the water, then I come along and she likes me for whatever reason. Seems to vary by mood, lots of other factors.”

    He blames smartphones, the Internet, and the demise of the SMP, which is, of course, a huge part of the issue, but it doesn’t necessarily address unique, one-on-one interactions. He’s right that “online dating makes the extremes much more extreme.”

    The deeper issue, I think, is that once women move past the “entertain me” mode and make the decision to meet guys IRL, they view the interaction much more dynamically than guys do. They want to feel like a spritely ingénue, and are therefore looking for feedback loops, ego affirmation, status perks, and so on, and these things happen on a moment-by-moment basis. On the other side, men tend to view women statically, like, “Is she even interested?”, “What’s her character like?”, “How easy is it to get along with her?”, “What’s her longitudinal motivation?”, “Is she marriage material or just for fun?”, “Will she put out?”, etc. To be successful IRL meetings, a man has to go beyond his own cognitive assessment of her static qualities and be responsive and skilled in the social dynamics, which is what matters to her.

    “That women say they want to meet a guy in real life, and that they hate dating apps, and yet keep using dating apps obsessively, is underexplored. It would be like if I said I hate carrots, and love broccoli and only ate carrots every day. You’d wonder.”

    We’ve already answered this question. They do it because they’re bored and can get easy attention/affirmation/dopamine/etc. from OLD apps. But they’re frustrated because they can’t find love IRL.

    I think if these guys weren’t so focused on T&A, then they might be able to detect/discern the dynamic moral imperatives that women rely on when choosing a man, things like ego compatibility, establishing feedback loops, non-shared environments, personality preferences, her preferred “type”, and being on the same wavelength communication-wise.

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The deeper issue, I think, is that once women move past the “entertain me” mode and make the decision to meet guys IRL, they view the interaction much more dynamically than guys do. They want to feel like a spritely ingénue, and are therefore looking for feedback loops, ego affirmation, status perks, and so on, and these things happen on a moment-by-moment basis…”

      I also think that it unnerves them to meet a guy IRL that they have only known virtually, like the situation I experienced that I described in my above post. I could tell that she was initially unnerved to actually be with me IRL. It took her awhile to relax; I mean a good bit of time.

      I was just the opposite. It was like, “Great, I get to finally meet you and talk to you in-person instead of through some damn screen or text message.” But then again, I’m old school, so maybe I was just on familiar ground for me. Also, it was not a date in the traditional sense, but a working relationship where we met up in person; and it was a very safe environment, a classroom environment.

      But still, the point is, even taking into account our age difference, the setting for the meeting and the fact that it was not a ‘date,’ but an official meet up, she seemed very uncomfortable at first, uncertain, even nervous. I attribute it to the fact that as an older Millennial, she has been interacting primarily with men virtually the last ten years or so, and not IRL. I’m not saying she never gets with them IRL, but so much is done in her generation virtually in the relationship prior to meeting, that the IRL when it finally happens, is unnerving to them.

      Like

    • anonymous_ng says:

      Jack wrote,

      “To be successful IRL meetings, a man has to go beyond his own cognitive assessment of her static qualities and be responsive and skilled in the social dynamics, which is what matters to her.”

      Imagine you’re standing on a street corner waiting for the light, and some guy comes up to you and says, “Hey! How’s it going?” For politeness sake, you’ll probably reply with some neutral thing like, “Things are good…”, but you have no intention of engaging this complete stranger in conversation.

      If this stranger then starts asking you the details of your life, you’re going to wonder what he’s selling. “What’s your name?”, “What do you do for a living?”, “Do you live around here?” and so on.

      If instead, this random stranger starts telling you about this crazy busker he saw recently and very animatedly paints a picture of this random encounter from his life that is somewhat interesting and exciting, then the potential exists that you will want to continue the conversation.

      This is one of the fundamentals of cold-approach pickup that gets glossed over so much, you have to carry the conversation until she decides that talking to you is more interesting that looking at her phone.

      But, even this is insufficient. You can be an entertaining conversationalist, but in no way a potential sexual partner. Thus, your sexual intentions also need to be made apparent, but in a woman’s way, not in a man’s way. That is flirting.

      If you try and talk to a woman like she is a man, things are probably going to go nowhere. I have a friend who is much more socially astute than I am. We were out at a bar one night, and I noticed that he was adopting almost a baby talk voice when talking to this woman. Beyond that, he was engaged in mindless banter, meaningless drivel.

      Just a random thought sparked by Jack’s commentary.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        “This is one of the fundamentals of cold-approach pickup that gets glossed over so much, you have to carry the conversation until she decides that talking to you is more interesting that looking at her phone.

        But, even this is insufficient. You can be an entertaining conversationalist, but in no way a potential sexual partner. Thus, your sexual intentions also need to be made apparent, but in a woman’s way, not in a man’s way. That is flirting.”

        Yeah, this is probably what old timers refer to as “being yourself”, except that it’s not really being yourself, except for a very small pool of men. For most men, it takes quite a bit of emotional work to carry the entire conversation, to be cocky and funny, to ramp up the sexual tension but not make it too apparent, and to be positive and upbeat the whole time, all the while putting yourself at risk of rejection (or worse). As you can see, it relies heavily on outcome independence. It’s also why a lot of guys say it feels like being a dancing monkey, and in a way it is, if you’re not putting your heart into it and being authentic.

        “I have a friend who is much more socially astute than I am. We were out at a bar one night, and I noticed that he was adopting almost a baby talk voice when talking to this woman. Beyond that, he was engaged in mindless banter, meaningless drivel.”

        He was connecting with her on her level, which was most certainly affirming and inspiring to her ego. To do this, a man really needs to have a good sense to detect a woman’s vibe, and he also needs to know how to tune into that as well.

        As difficult as all this is for those who are good at it, I can see how it would be practically impossible for a young person who was never exposed to this kind of behavior and never learned how to do it.

        Like

      • anonymous_ng says:

        Jack, I don’t really disagree with you, but it’s difficult, painful, and scary to learn anything.

        Want to learn to play the guitar? Your fingers are going to hurt until the calluses form. Want to learn to fight? Even with big padded gloves, getting punched in the face hurts until you get used to it. Want to get over your fear of public speaking? Join Toastmasters and do it until it no longer bothers you.

        If you want to get comfortable talking to attractive women, you probably don’t want to practice at work, or at church, or probably not even at school. The potential fallout of a bad interaction is too high. Instead, go to the bar. It’s the last place where society has deemed it OK to try and meet romantic partners, there are many people moving through every night so if you get blown out, in an hour there might not be anyone there who was around for your failure. Or, go to another bar, or come back another night. Or go to Vegas and practice there.

        Here’s the thing, even if you could sleep with a woman you met at the bar and had a great time with, you don’t have to. You can learn to extend things into a brunch or lunch date.

        Also, you only have to carry the conversation until the hook point, that point where she has decided that you are more interesting than her phone. Once she’s also contributing to the conversation, then it’s easier and more of a give and take, but it still probably needs to be a vibing instead of an information exchange the way men usually converse.

        Yes, it does rely heavily on outcome independence. That’s the entire point.

        I think about it like this. If you have to drink yourself nearly insensate in order to find the courage to approach an attractive woman, you’ve already disqualified yourself. Then, if you react badly to her disinterest, then you’ve validated her decision.

        If you’re obviously socially inept, that might well be disqualifying. I imagine few women want a man with undeveloped or nonexistent social skills.

        If you aren’t comfortable in your own skin, that’s probably disqualifying again.

        It’s not fair that a certain level of social skill is necessary in our modern world to meet women and to find a wife. There are groups and sub-cultures where it’s probably easier. I’ve heard it said that renaissance faires, the Society For Creative Anachronism are places where nerds can get laid. IDK. I’ve never been to one. Perhaps motorcycle clubs and car clubs function similarly. IDK.

        But, in our technocratic middle-class world, it requires social skills. And, there are no guarantees. You can have all the social skill in the world and if you aren’t her type, she’s not going to be interested.

        So, if a man doesn’t have the skills, well, check out Skill-Share. LOL!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        If you are uncomfortable with social skills or they don’t naturally come to you, take a commission based sales job. It is very much jumping into the deep end of the pool, but you’ll get good at talking with everyone and anyone and they’ll give you training for how to pull information out of people (make them comfortable enough to share with you) and overcome objections.

        I have found that being naturally curious helps tremendously too. The more you expose yourself to, the more topics you can connect with other people over and it can be as simple as having introductory knowledge on a topic the other person cares about and then being willing to listen to them talk about it.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. redpillboomer says:

    “It’s not fair that a certain level of social skill is necessary in our modern world to meet women and to find a wife. There are groups and sub-cultures where it’s probably easier. I’ve heard it said that renaissance faires, the Society For Creative Anachronism are places where nerds can get laid. IDK. I’ve never been to one. Perhaps motorcycle clubs and car clubs function similarly. IDK”

    This is worth exploring as a blog topic, IMO. I’m a member of a motorcycle riding club and it has always been my impression that the women involved, particularly the more feminine women, are already attracted, in general, to men who ride. I’m not sure what all goes into it, the attraction that is, however a couple of things off the top of my head seem to be in play:

    1) These women are turned on by the activity itself; IOW the activity, in my case motorcycles and riding, gives them the tingles. The men are an added turn-on, particularly the guys who come across as masculine in appearance and conduct. AND, as an added bonus, the guys that ride don’t have to be the classic Chad type — the 6 X 6 guys; you know, the one’s the women are attracted to on the dating apps and in the clubs.
    2) The really feminine women, in general, don’t want to ride their own bike. They enjoy being the BoB (B!tch on the Back, or Babe on the Back). I know this, I’ve asked a few, “Why don’t you get your own bike and ride?” They invariably answer with something like, “No, I enjoy just riding behind (bf’s name) and not having to drive, can see more that way (scenery).” It has always occurred to me as a bit disingenuous when they say it; not totally untrue, but not the full reason they won’t get their own bike. I think it’s also because they feel sexy back there in the BoB position, and it stimulates them to have their arms around a guy with the bike vibrating underneath them. It creates a sexual type experience to some degree.

    It would be worth exploring because I think these avenues, these subcultures, can give the ‘average Joe’s’ a better shot at the women involved. Instead of trying to connect with Stacy and Amber on-line or in the clubs, running game on them and getting rejected over and over; they might try getting involved with Mary and Linda in these clubs. You never know, they might be able to get something going with M&L where they never will with S&A.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Joe2 says:

    “If you want to get comfortable talking to attractive women, you probably don’t want to practice at work, or at church, or probably not even at school. The potential fallout of a bad interaction is too high. Instead, go to the bar.”

    I agree that the risk of a bad interaction, especially at work, is much too high. But rather than going to a bar, I think going to a “gentlemen’s club” is a viable alternative and may be preferable depending on your circumstances.

    At a bar, you’ll experience a lot of competition for the attention of attractive women and you have to put up with obnoxious drunks, noise, a lot of rejection, etc. All of which make it difficult to engage in any conversation.

    OTOH, a quality “gentlemen’s club” will have a concentration of attractive women whose job it is to talk and engage with the customers in a safe environment. Don’t go there for the T&A, but go there for the conversation. The women will approach you and carry the conversation if they detect you are not comfortable. Of course, the women are there to make money and will try to sell you a dance, have you buy them a drink, etc. but those experiences will serve to sharpen your resolve and frame because you’ll learn how to decline such offers in a socially acceptable manner without appearing obnoxious. Generally, the ratio of women to customers is quite favorable so there will be ample opportunity to practice and develop your confidence along with minimal concern about a bad interaction.

    Like

  10. Devon70 says:

    Better Bachelor on YouTube did a good, by-the-numbers breakdown of dating sites, and guys have a very low chance of success since all the women are swamped with messages. There’s MeetUp groups for interests which are mainly older single people. I’m in a hiking group and two couples have formed out of that.

    [Jack: I’m guessing you’re referring to this video…]

    This guy goes on 100 dates, spends $7,800… but was it worth it? (2020-12-14)

    Like

  11. Pingback: The more things change, the more they stay the same. | Σ Frame

  12. Scott says:

    When you find a woman online who only has one picture of herself on her profile, you can rest assured it is absolutely the best picture that has ever been taken of her since the beginning of her life.

    That’s my online dating advice.

    Both Mychael and I had at least 15 pics of ourselves in various clothing, different lighting, different everything.

    It’s how you know the person will not catfish you. Neither of us was surprised. Made all the difference in the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Mrs. Apostle and I met on a website 20 years ago and online dating at the time carried enough of a stigma that we didn’t tell anyone other than a select few how we really met until after we were married. Even better than that, Mrs. Apostle didn’t tell her mom, who she talks to every day, the details of how we met the first time until after we’d been married for nearly 5 years and the story still shocked her mom. The reason Mrs. Apostle threw caution to the wind was because we spent enough time talking on the phone before ever meeting in person, over 50 hours in a month, that she felt that I was being honest about who I was and I felt she was being honest about who she was. Although, she did use the best picture possible for her online profile and the website only had a spot for a single picture.

      Like

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 )

Connecting to %s