Normal, reasonable people don’t have the weird, bizarre sex and dating problems that legacy media outlets are continually writing about: the point comes up because of a foolish advice column from a woman to a woman, titled “Why Isn’t Anyone Sliding Into My DMs?!” I’m not going to do a link because however dumb you think the material might be from the title, it’s dumber. I used to write analyses of this class of dumb article but then I was like… “Why?” Why bother? It’s pure entertainment, with no more bearing on reality than novels about dragons and swords.
The media is almost entirely made by people who are abnormally self-aggrandizing, self-regarding, grandiose, entitled, and/or narcissistic people… and those people are trying to make money in a shrinking, shrieking, deranged industry. Almost all of the dumbest stuff comes from NYC, too, I think because of the extreme gender skew there… college-educated women far outnumber men in the NYC metro area, creating an environment in which women have to compete much harder for men than they do elsewhere. The high cost of housing, because of legal constraints imposed by the city on building more housing also means that most people feel they can’t afford to have families, so they might as well f**k around a lot instead. Women get pushed towards spinsterdom, because so few guys can afford the cost of an okay family housing unit. Normal girls in normal places, like Denver or Dallas or wherever, who want boyfriends, get them, and don’t have the constant struggle some NYC chicks do.
Those NYC chicks who are trying to make it in media either have trust funds or are living with like 6 people in a 5 room house. Neither is conducive to producing a normal, balanced view of the world. Instead, like too many rats sharing too small a cage, one gets bizarre behavior not representative of happy, healthy, demographically intact rats in nature. A “smart” NYC dating advice column for women would emphasize the skewed ratio and suggest women temper hypergamy and possibly move to a better market. There wouldn’t be much material to such advice, though, so we get the legacy media and the female-focused dating podcasts we do.
The media industry is also horribly unhealthy, so anyone pretending to try to become Bob Woodward or Tom Wolfe this year, let alone in the last 10 years, is destined to fail. Smart people don’t go into media… so we see people trying to pretend it’s still 1990, when it’s not, and with increasingly dysfunctional results. Connect the dots. Understand the system. If there is a message in Red Quest it is “understand the system, before you try to analyze the outputs.”
Some women aren’t wired to be happy or compromise: they want to compete for top guys in NYC. That’s okay but most of them will fail, numerically. They’re the women who roll the dice. Maybe it works, but mostly it doesn’t. They’re the women producing the material that incorrectly perceives reality, because they’re in a situation that’s far from anything resembling reality.
The normal women are the ones I’ve written about, in Priorities and what you bring to life (Katie’s story) and also Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks. Weird is more interesting than normal. Normal women (and men) try to improve their sexual market value (SMV) but also make suitable compromises to form positive-sum human relationships. Normal people realize that no one is perfect and try to see the best in others. Normal people don’t spend 10 years online dating via apps. The world of “normal” is the vast iceberg beneath the media waterline. Normal women aren’t dating solely or primarily via Instagram. If they are, there’s something wrong with them, and whatever is wrong with them might compel them to write into an advice column being written by an overweight 30-year-old woman who might make $40,000 a year trying to make money laboring for legacy media outlets. Is that what a smart person is doing?
Don’t generalize about women, men, or dating from the legacy media. Legacy media is an entertainment product, not, primarily, an information product. For many men (and for that matter women), little to know material from those sources is more useful in terms of sex and dating than any material from those sources. I’ve written before that Red Quest is more useful for men who want to date successfully than essentially anything in legacy media. Even today, legacy media does billions in revenue yearly, and yet for one of the most important facts of human life, some anon bloggers are 10x or more better. We live in a weird f**kin’ world, but I want to emphasize the legacy media point because I see and hear guys who think that the kind of garbage that’s routinely produced as an entertainment product says anything real about women, men, or dating. It doesn’t. We can do better, but we also live in a world in which a significant minority of people don’t want anything resembling truth or reality.
There is more “normal” out there than much of the Internet admits. Normal women are in relationships, which aren’t hard for normal, height-weight proportionate women to get. Relationships are much harder for older women, unreasonable women, lunatics, women who have been convinced by other women and the legacy media industry that they have mental health problems, etc. So guess who is the main purveyor of these kinds of stories?
You may fairly wonder, “Okay, dude, aren’t you as bad as them?” The answer is “sort of,” but, in my defense, I began writing Red Quest because I noticed something about men, the game, and sex that, to my knowledge, no one else has noticed or discussed. Red Quest as a project sought to explore that specific issue, which can’t and won’t be addressed in legacy media venues, because it’s too contrary to the media narrative. So I went rogue, went outside the venues, and wrote about it (much as The Last Psychiatrist went outside the usual venues in order to speak to the modern condition). The culmination of Red Quest is the free book. Most guys, I’ve come to realize, don’t actually, substantively, meaningfully care about getting laid. But, for those of us who do, I’ve foregrounded ideas that I wish I’d known about when I was coming up. While I can’t turn back time, I can report what I’ve found… which is what I’ve done. And now, other guys are reporting back on their experiences. There has never been a better time to be a player.
The dumbness of not building more shelter is vast. Imagine that we could only build 5 million cars a year. There’d be all sorts of weird, ineffective schemes to subsidize cars for poor people. There’d be people worried about “foreign buyers.” Then there’d be economically literate people saying, “Let’s build more cars, so there’s enough for everyone.” That’s what I am, in terms of housing. Abundance, baby, abundance! Abundance in hot girls, abundance in housing, abundance is lifting weights, abundance for everyone.
The average New York apartment in 1950 cost $530 in 2015 dollars. Back then, government didn’t impose mandatory shelter restrictions. Today, it does. Sad.
3 thoughts on “Anything you read about dating in the legacy media is about weirdo outliers”
There are good reasons for restricting max number of housing in NYC. If you let them built unlimited around, there is a problem of how many will come on roads; what happens when things get flooded/earthquaked.
Don’t go by places like HongKong/Singapore (Not Dubai), those are up up and away cause they don’t have any other choices and must build up. Those are disasters waiting to happen, Just one tsunami, one flood.
It’s better to push for a better and faster trasit system so that people can come to town centre quickly – like London or Tokyo (another highly dense area, but still expansive).
>>There are good reasons for restricting max number of housing in NYC. If you let them built unlimited around, there is a problem of how many will come on roads; what happens when things get flooded/earthquaked.
Not even remotely true: NYC arbitrarily capped housing construction in 1961, https://www.city-journal.org/nyc-zoning-reform-needed-for-housing-growth. NYC is built on walking, biking, and subways, not cars, so road capacity isn’t a problem if/when the city implements congestion pricing: https://rpa.org/work/reports/congestion-pricing-in-nyc
Don’t repeat myths and bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of statistics, I have said the following a few times:
Your success is anecdotal. You making it twenty years in a marriage broke through what was happening to other people. It isn’t a scientific example, at best it serves as an outlier.
The reality is that a larger portion will hit rougher times.
I said the same about “winning” with feminism. Shining examples are never the reality. Sandberg and Alred are not the norm.
I hate when I see some formerly palatable media have someone blatantly blue pill or simp worthy crow about their arrangement.
I know I am surfing around here, but the outliers are terrible examples that shouldn’t be exalted as normal.