Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks

Here is a specific example of the kind of statement I see frequently and I’m sure you have too, if you hang out in pickup and men’s Internet:

Part of the problem is that American chicks are just super fucking flighty, stupid, and picky: selection bias means the chicks on Tinder or online dating in general here, as going to be more flaky, stupid, and picky than chicks who have their shit together.

Two of the most interesting girls I’ve met in the last four years or so, Short Dancer and Ms. Slav, both say they’ve never done online dating. Never. Zero times. No Tinder. They meet men (and women, for Ms. Slav) in real life, at parties, etc. They could be lying, sure, but I don’t know why they would. Both of them have reasonable expectations of men, in my opinion, and they’re both hot. Not hard 9, Playboy-bunny hot… but very few guys would be unhappy with either. Some of the most delusional girls I know, however, have done online dating… a lot of it. Just talking to girls and noticing the ones who complain about online/not being able to get a boyfriend, versus the ones who have reasonable expectations and try to like guys in real life (as opposed to defaulting to NOT liking them and disqualifying them), shows huge differences between the two. I suspect I also have unusual experience among guys writing about the game online because I know and have met a lot of girls, so I get to hear them talk, think, and cogitate. That means I get to hear some delusional thinking, sure, yes… but their words and actions, parsed correctly, do yield insight, over time, when aggregated.

Reasonable girls know there are tons of decent guys out there. Guys who are employed and have normal bodies/personalities. If a girl is not f**king nuts, she won’t be online for long, cause she’ll meet a guy who is okay… and she’ll start dating him. Maybe he won’t be a male 9 and spit tight super entertaining game… but if she’s able to look past some initial fumbling, she gets a boyfriend. If not, and if she has unreasonable expectations… she is online, a LOT. Girls who reject every guy who starts with “Hey” or “how are you?”, are going to select for guys who are clever players. Girls who reject every guy who isn’t at least 1 and ideally 2 points above them in terms of sexual market value (SMV) will spend a lot of time online dating, cause their market isn’t clearing. They will get a lot of sex from higher status guys… who will then drop them… leading them to complain about men… while never looking at their own behavior.

By contrast… I’m thinking of this girl I’ve known for a while, Jane, who was like a 6…. and did online dating for like 5+ years (not sure what she’s up to these days cause I lost interest)… yet despite being a 6, Jane had the personality of a bitchy 8.5+. She was online constantly, with her f**ked up psychology, going through guys and complaining about guys. Her friends were similar… all the friends stated that they wanted boyfriends but somehow none of them could quite hang onto them. They were all young, and some adopted the modern feminist man-hating ethos and pose, which further hurts their ability to get boyfriends… you can’t date a person whose whole class you have taught yourself to hate (men with an underlying hatred of women also do poorly… a lot of older women with declining SMV become bitte towards men as a class, which is a reason they’re often dangerous to date). Jane and her friends are the kinds of girls Red Pill guys complain about.

The Short Dancers and Ms. Slavs of the world… RP guys don’t complain about (well, they might complain about Ms. Slav’s love of sex and uninterest in monogamy, but that’s another story…). The Short Dancers of the world are probably invisible to most Red Pill guys. She’s spent most of her time in a relationship.

The Market for Lemons is a famous paper describing how online dating markets have evolved. In my experience, in the 2009 – 2015 period, online was weird/unusual/thin enough that a lot of chicks on it either had niche tastes or really needed to meet new guys, cause they weren’t offline. They had sufficiently few options that they weren’t totally nuts. Now, however, the online markets are much thicker but normal chicks want to get out of them quickly…. and they do. They maybe spend a few weeks on Tinder. They are not idiots, so they go out on dates pretty quickly and evaluate the guy in person. They know there are lots of decent guys out there. They pick one and get offline. If he is image matched to them, the relationship goes well.

Example: last time I checked, Short Dancer seemed to be dating a male 6, for some reason. No idea why… could be that she wants monogamy real bad and is willing to compromise to get it. She’s at least a high 7 and I’d give her a solid 8. But if she is serious about monogamy, she is likely getting it, and the guy is probably stunned to be getting a girl as hot as her. I think there are more girls like Short Dancer out there than we give credit for… but they are almost all in relationships, if they want to be. If “Katie,” the girl I wrote about a few days ago, were young and in the market today, I bet she would do no or minimal online dating.

It’s easy to sort girls who are really interested in meeting a guy, because they want to meet pretty quickly, even for a 45-minute coffee. The flakey ones want to have long, drawn-out, and pointless online conversations with guys (you can guess who stays on the market).

I have also heard daygame guys say that, if they do a lot of daygame, and then do online, they will sometimes run into girls they daygamed online. And those are much more productive matches.

With this particular girl–let’s call her Double Take–we text a bit on Tinder and then I ask for her number, which she gives. I set up the date for the next day, she agrees, game on.

While we’re texting that day, however, it comes out that I’ve day gamed her! She rejected me, of course, because chicks are rational lol.

I honestly didn’t remember, but she insists I tried to get her number sometime before and that was why she swiped on me.

Obviously daygame is not relevant during coronavirus, but at some point coronavirus will pass or we will get treatments for it, and the game will remain.

Smart guys, today, are figuring out how to get offline to meet chicks, or combine offline/online in a smart way. Even back when online worked fairly well for me, I always did some combination of online and offline. I have also been interested in photography for a long time, and that has helped. Even if you are a good-looking guy, if your photos don’t show it, you will fail. There is serious data showing this. Shirtless bathroom selfies don’t cut it. I have pics of me where I probably look like a male 5 and pics where I might look like a male 9. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but ones that look great. None of the best-looking ones were taken by a cell phone, either, I want to emphasize. The camera is useless if you’re not doing anything interesting, but doing a lot of interesting things and not having visual evidence of it is not useful for online dating. Maybe that sounds like a lot of work, but there is no way around doing the work for a non-elite guy. Girls complaining about online usually have not done the work, internally or externally.

Author: The Red Quest

How can we live and be in society?

10 thoughts on “Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks”

  1. Great post and pulls together a lot of threads guys have been talking about.

    I think what concerns me going forward is that more and more women have been raised on smartphones and social media and are therefore more likely to be delusional. That said, the point you make is well taken which is that chicks who are high quality and NOT delusional, will either not do online, or do online and get into a relationship fairly fast.

    In this sense, I’d say there are kind of two categories of chicks, although like all things, it probably looks more like a double bell curve/spectrum than people neatly fitting into category A or B. In any case:

    Category A: serial monogamists moving toward marriage.

    Category B: delusional thots moving toward spinsterdom.

    The category A girls are like Ms. Slav or Short Dancer or probably some of the girlfriends we’ve had in our past. They come from relatively stable families, are reasonably intelligent or at least kind in general, and mostly play by the rules. In general, they ARE NOT going to be into non-monogamy, and at some point, most of these chicks are going to end up married with families.

    The category B girls come–lol, probably most of the women I’ve slept with in the past two years (my game tends to be very r-selected)–from unstable families or broken homes, spend a lot of time playing on their phones and probably didn’t go to college or aren’t that intellgent/kind, and have a sense of entitlement that comes with watching a lot of reality TV.

    My concern–and what I see based on my experience–is that smart phones and social media are moving chicks (and guys–our whole society really) more toward category B.

    When I say based on experience, I’m not talking just about girls I’ve had sex with or gamed, but what I see from those around me: my sister’s friends, my ex-wife’s friends, my cousin and her friends, and many of the girls I have connections with on IG. Keep in mind: most of these girls have had good lives, good families, aren’t “sluts” in the traditional sense, are educated, etc. They shouldn’t be in category B…and yet there they are: constantly posting on stories on social media, obsessed with taking pictures of themselves, thirsty for validation, etc.

    I guess the good news here is that girls from either category will respond to cold approach, esp. day game. My takeaway from online is that it’s a blackpill environment: you need to be very good looking with very good pictures, and the girls there are generally going to be what RQ is talking about in this post: much more delusional and bitchy than the average chick.

    Like

    1. >> I think what concerns me going forward is that more and more women have been raised on smartphones and social media and are therefore more likely to be delusional

      I will link your extended discussion here https://redpilldad.blog/2020/03/23/selection-bias-and-generational-differences/

      That being raised on smartphones and social media will change chicks makes sense. But today’s 18 – 20 year olds came of age in 2010 – 2014…. when smartphones were already pretty pervasive… so the damage may already be mostly done.

      I tend to repel the most smartphone addicted chicks, and I seem to attract the ones who keep social media at arm’s length, so I dunno, they don’t seem to be my target market. Making fun of social media and online dating in real life makes for good riffs, though, and accusing the girl of being a vacant-eyed consumer can be a good riff too.

      Like

    2. I would add Category C, “Consciously sex-positive girls who want to have a lot of sex.” Ms. Slav fits better there.

      I like this category C group.

      When they get old enough, sure, moving towards being spinsters… but age 18 -26, most chicks are not concerned with that issue.

      Like

  2. How confident are you both that Daygame does comeback? The natural human reaction and lesson from all the crisis of the last 20-30 years is ‘things will get back to normal, sooner or later.’ Maybe ‘this time is different.’ I work on a trading floor. Conventional wisdom just 2 months ago was that my job was undoable from home. Yet here I am sitting in my sweatpants quoting financial markets from the comfort of my living room. I have a computer, multiple screens and a turret (expensive, multiple phone and speaker line communication system) set up with an industrial grade internet connection. Even once this blows over its very likely I will keep my full setup here and work at least part of the week from home. Unthinkable even a few months ago. We truly are an adaptable species. Men will always want to meet girls. DayGame has been a fantastic leveler for men who were not able or did not want to meet girls using fame, money or social connections. There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences to our response to this pandemic. My guess is viable niches will remain. Sex clubs are a niche. Meeting girls in the line at the supermarket or coffee shop is a niche. Doing mass generic front stops on a high street or in a mall a la London Day Game model.. I think those days are over.

    Like

    1. Daygame (and night game) will come back because men and women still like and desire each other, so as long as the sex drive exists those things will exist. “Daygame” is just a way of saying “talking to girls and flirting with them and finding ways of opening them up to get to know the guy.” Girls like being approached… guys like f**king… it will happen, when it can.

      A lot of business can and probably will shift… but human nature… it is a bit more constant.

      It might be a year or two before we get effective treatments and vaccines… but when we do… daytime will work again. Work may change… the trading floor may or may not come back… the game will live on as long as humans like mating and fucking in real space.

      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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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