Inner Game

by Trigger. trigger at inner-game.info

  • The dating market is heavily skewed in favor of women. Men want women more than women want men, thus, men get desperate, and women can do what they want.

    The effect even strengthens itself, since the more desperate for pussy men will get, the more women can get picky and the more they can get away it. As men become more and more frustrated, they become more and more "depraved" (Law of Eristic Escalation), which in turn will make women loathe them all the more, etc. in a vicious circle.

    Like it or not, supply and demand matter heavily on the dating market, like on any other market.

    Consequences

    So how does that skewed market look like? The average Western woman...

    • Can choose among several high quality partners (Elaine - Spongeworthy). You can't.
    • Has no particular creative competences (she never needed them!), neither for survival nor for an advanced technological society. But expects both from you.
    • Doesn't know how to cook. Expects you to.
    • Is bored and boring.
    • Has pussy and boobs.
    • Has nothing to offer but pussy and boobs.
    • Expects you to like her for something more than just her pussy and boobs.

    Additionally:

    It appears men have let women define the rules, not only of the dating game, but also the general rules of society, probably as a consequence of losing at the former. All of this means women have easy access not only to sex, but to resources and power as well.

    Apparently, it wasn't always so. Indeed, it does all appear connected, since at that time all the other side effects were probably reversed as well (more legal rights for men, marriage a better deal for men than women, etc).

    Causes

    • The decline in male mortality means that, since there are more male babies than female babies at birth, for any given cohort of same age people, there will be more men than women.
    • Furthermore, since women are attracted by older men, and, conveniently, men are attracted by younger women, it follows that an increasing population will skew the market in favor of men, whereas a decreasing population will favor women. That's why sexual liberation followed the baby boom.
    • Obesity is against men: obesity has more of a dating market effect for women than for men, thus, fat women make non-fat women all the more precious.
    • Female sex toys are now openly available in pharmacies and "mommy porn" is widely read on the bus, while at the same time porn and prostitution are being crusaded against.
    • Biologically, one man can impregnate hundreds of women every year, whereas a woman can have only one baby per year. This has lots of effects on sexual politics of course, but here's an interesting one for our current purpose: it makes sense for several women to share one man (polygyny), it makes less sense for several men to share one woman (polyandry). Except in Tibet. Thus, even outside of reproduction or marriage, women mind less sharing a man than men mind sharing a woman. Thus, women can all agree on one alpha male for sex, men can't all agree on one woman prostitute for sex. Thus, women will tend to compete heavily for a few males, whereas men will compete more mildly for a wider range of females. Thus, an average woman can get sex more easily from an average man than an average man can get sex from an average woman.
    • Last but not least: politics. The ancestral trade was sex for resources. Since women don't need men for resources anymore, due to the "Welfare State", "alimony payments", and other suck rackets, obviously, the equilibrium has shifted in their favor.

    Solutions

    A major technological change will come that will make men less dependent on women, like the previous social evolutions have made women less dependent on men.

    This evolution has not been all bad, though. It means men have to bring to the table more than just resources. It's good: I'm all in favor of meaningful relationshps between equal partners. It's part of mankind's general progress on the path of technological, social and personal development, where we all become beings concerned with more than just survival. In an advanced civilization of intellectuals who're not concerned with mere survival and reproduction anymore, it's only natural for mating to be about more than sex-for-resources.

    But the other side of the sex-for-resources bargain must evolve as well: women must bring more than just sex. It's good as well: like men could evolve from "pocketbooks" to worthwhile partners, so women will finally be awarded, as well, the opportunity to become more than just sex objects. They will have to actually become interesting persons as well.

    Of course, relationships already are about a lot more than just that. However:

    • What women needed most from men were resources, thus the major shift was a reduction in the need for resources from men.
    • What men need most from women is sex, thus the major shift has to to be a reduction in the need for sex from women.

    Men must become less dependent on women for sex. Here's what you can do about it on personal, political and social levels:

    • Turn monk, forget women.
    • Use porn. Fight for legal porn. Defend porn as normal.
    • Turn gay. Applaud any and all progress towards gay rights. (Conversely, lesbianism is not in our favor, but fighting for both together is still worth it.)
    • Turn John. Defend legal prostitution. If you're going to pay for sex anyway, use Ben Bernanke's printed green paper for currency, not you immortal soul by compromising with obese feminists. Help making prostitution as socially acceptable as possibly. Don't slut shame women who practice it. Don't get confused: Conservative men are the useful idiots of feminists in this regard.
    • Find women abroad, and defend your legal right to do so. Since the plight has mostly affected the West, find women wherever else. (Rule of thumb: check a country's demographics and politics to know how far the damage has been done.) Feminists already scream against it: of course, globalization and non-discrimination has been a major victory against them.
    • Get a fembot, such as in Futurama: Don't date Robots. Contribute to the technology to make them, and fight for your right to own it. Feminists will try to ban them, have no doubt.
    • Get a "Personal processing unit" like in The Matrix (individual Matrix-like VR machines, used by Ghost in Enter the Matrix) and have sex with The Woman in Red. Contribute to the technology to make them, and fight for your right to own them. Feminists will try to ban them, have no doubt.

    None of the above means you, personally, have to resort to any of those specific measures. What's important is that some men are allowed to, and do. And by some, I mean enough men, especially alpha men, to skew the market again in men's favor. I'd say if, from the above combined, 20% of men remove themselves from the dating market, it will already change the dating market completely, and set in motion another trend reversal. And that's all we need.

    • Because you love someone so much that you want to know what the mix of your genes will look like;

    • Because you've already reached such clarity and confidence in your values that you can actually transmit them;

    • Because you've achieved all you had to achieve as an individual;

    • Because you understand the concept of pride and want to experience towards your offspring.

    Why not to have children?

    Any other reason.

  • Sex should be a celebration of life, pleasure, intimacy between people.

    It should not be...

    • Something you do because you think it's wrong

    • Something you don't do because you think it's wrong

    • Something you don't do because you enjoy it

    • Something you do even if you don't enjoy it.

    • Something you do to someone you hate.

    • Something you do to prove something to yourself.

    • Something you do to prove something to others.

    • Something you don't do to prove something.
  • Truth or influence: do you say something because it's true, or because of the intended effect? Do you pick sides based on who's right, or based on your interests? Do you pick a political party, a religion, based on where the truth lies, or based on fashion, on other people's opinions?

    Do you say stuff and hold views only in order to please or displease, rebel or conform, annoy or appease? Of course, it's a second-hander stance, with the usual issue: if everyone does this, where do points of views come from?

    And, who's determining the course of your life, your own values and choices, or the values and choices of people that are dumber than you?

  • Which one is the better reframe of the usual religious question, ignosticism or apatheism?

    The wikipedia article states that "Ignosticism is not to be confused with apatheism, a position of apathy toward the existence of God. An apatheist may see the statement "God exists" as insignificant; yet they may also see it as having semantic value, and perhaps being true."

    Does this mean ignosticism goes further than apatheism? Or could we say that the true apatheist doesn't even care whether the proposition has semantic value or not?

    When Laplace answered "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypoth├Ęse.", was he being an ignostic or an apatheist?

    But there's definitely an ignostic angle here:

    Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life. Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.

    – Ayn Rand, We the Living