I've heard this one a lot. People always like to blame the man for his lack of sexual or romantic prowess. If you're discussing your issues online, people will say that merely talking about them is misogynistic and therefore a clear example of why you are sexually/romantically unsuccessful (because women can smell your misogyny and nobody with anti-social, anti-intellectual, sociopathic or misogynistic traits ever got laid, ever). Furthermore, if you are getting rejected by whole scores of women, YOU are the common denominator.
And if anyone thinks this is just feminists who say this it's not true. Dating coaches like Mark Manson say this in his book, models:
Just to name an obvious example. Men often come to me and say something like this: “I go out and try to meet women, but the problem is all of the girls in my town are catty and immature. So I guess I just need to move to a new city.”
Really? So, it’s not you who’s screwed up, it’s the 150,000+ single women in your city who are all screwed up... in the exact same way... What are the odds of that?
I don't feel like digging up any more relevant quotes but PUA forums are littered with this kind of advice too. Ok, so Manson and some of those PUAs may be a little bit feminist also (I don't know them personally, I really couldn't tell you). But it really isn't just feminists - oh no, it is traditionalists too like Jordan Peterson see 2m20s onwards:
Apart from anything else this is an appeal to popular opinion but that argument doesn't usually sway intellectuals because it mainly applies to mathematical/logical principles rather than subjective arguments like morals, or indeed attractiveness/dating/etc.
But look, let's see what other common denominators are apart from me, the person actually doing most of the approaching, putting time and effort into myself to make sure I am the best, most attractive, most authentic version of myself I can be.
Social pressures/barriers are the number one reason for GMs falling behind in dating
Normally people only talk about the social pressures on women - that they shouldn't sleep around or flirt with guys (even Good Men - GMs) because then they will be called "sluts", they won't be seen as marriage material. This does actually make dating harder for the GMs falling behind (not saying all GMs are) because the women we do approach will distance themselves from us. I consider myself quite good looking - not a Chad or a Lebron James but still above average when I'm looking presentable and slipped into something stylish. But I do have a bunch of issues with this in spite of possessing many of the traits that should make me theoretically compatible with a lot of high quality women out there. I am compassionate, sensititive, interesting, passionate and I do also work out, pursue my ambitions and other stereotypically masculine things. So what is it then. Why would guys like me be failing in this dating environment. We can't be all the things we say we are because otherwise we would have met someone by now right.
It's because we don't work well with these social circumstances. I'm not saying my experiences talk for all GMs but lets look at some of the guys who have things in common with me:
- GMs like me don't like bars and clubs because of the way people behave in those places: it's animalistic. And no, that doesn't mean I'm boring and I don't like to drink, it just means people act like fucking shitheads in bars and nightclubs. For example you can't go to those places alone because then you are "that guy" - a weirdo, someone who's just gone there looking for sex, someone to stay away from, possibly even laugh at or ridicule, someone who the bouncers will be keeping their eyes on, etc. Even with friends, you've still got to deal with guys trying to push their weight around, bragging about the size of their dicks in the urinals, interrupting your set when your trying to talk to a cute girl to steal her away from you (the same guys who - yes, they are often successful with women) and you've still got to deal with bitchy superficial women, loud music that drowns out conversation, aggressive drunks, arsehole bouncers, etc. Those places are nightmares.
- dating advice sucks. It's either red pill, amoral dating strategy: "be manly man, GRRRR; ignore rejections - those are shit-tests; drive your way past LMR or you're a lil bitch; fuck conversation and getting to know her be manly man" or it's feminist namby pamby crap that doesn't work "just be kind, respectful, get to know her, be gentle". There's few coaches out there who recognise the true need for a fine balance between a masculine approach and feminine sensitivity. Then there's the black pill, it doesn't even give advice unless you have a very specific facial structure to begin with (in which case you should "just lift and lookmax bro") - it tells you that "it's over", even though so many studies have shown the variability in women's tastes in regards to aesthetics compared to men and that most women do not even prioritise looks as number one anyway. All the other mainstream outlets when I was 18 and figuring out how I was going to make my entrance into the dating scene just said vague bullshit as well, "buy her drinks, be smart and presentable, approach her right and be confident". It's because of all this lack of advice that paved the way for the red pill to begin with because deep in that trash can are a few actually semi-decent semi-workable things. You've just got to dive deep (which shouldn't even be necessary). Then there's all the scam PUA gimmicks that's just obviously there to take a large chunk out of your wallet.
- related to the feminist advice that doesn't work, all of the "just get a few hobbies and join some clubs" bull doesn't work because the rules in those environments make it just as difficult to approach women as they do in bars and nightclubs. Sure your typical tennis court or book club are friendlier places than some night club shit hole.
- we don't like being told we have to seek traditional arrangements like monogamy. I know some guys on here want traditional arrangements and marriage whatever but practising that lifestyle and saying it should be for everyone are two completely different things. It's so hypocritical for the feminists who say that we need to treat women right and find one to settle down with, not treat her like fuck meat or whatever but simultaneously argue sex positivity and that women should be allowed to sleep around without being slut-shamed. And it's ironic when Jordan Peterson talks about how (socially) "forced monogamy" is supposed to help "incels" or whatever because they have more choice now that promiscuous men like Lebron James but actually slut-shaming women just makes it harder for GMs to approach because of the women who want to pretend like they aren't sexual or whatever because of the social pressures.
On this last point during his interview with Rogan where he "clarified" his position about pressured monogamy (I did not find it in the slightest bit convincing, this article forms the basis of my opinion why forced monogamy is a shit solution for GMs who fall back) his problem was he was focussing on helping out incels with his "solution". I mean, I get that not all incels are the same (I definitely don't want to start railing against the GMs who fell for incel cult like I did), but a significant part of these fellows we're talking about rape and paedophilia apologists who tell naive and innocent newcomers to their communities (hands up, I was one of them) "it's over", "take the blackpill", "stop coping start roping". I really could not give a fuck about this unsavoury crowd who wants to help them? Besides pressured monogamy wouldn't help them anyway.
So because he was focussing his solution for incels, it doesn't surprise me that when Rogan asked Peterson during the interview - and I paraphrase -
Ok, so you want to help out incels. But what about guys like Lebron James who's 6'5, good looking, athletic, successful, etc. and of course they're going to be successful with women? Why shouldn't they get to sleep around with women, assuming they're using contraception and not having illegitimate kids who will grow up without a father figure.
It really is no surprise to me then that Peterson was basically completely flustered for words and started babbling tangentially about equality of outcome / how hierarchies can sometimes implode on themselves / how feminists do have one or two reasonable points or something. Because he was talking about incels, so he doesn't have a good reason why they (I mean the worst of them, not the ones who can be redeemed) *should get to pass on their genes for any fucking reason**.*
And this is precisely what I mean - if you will look at my subreddit or take a look through my post history - when I repeatedly talk about how the discourse for Good Men has become limited. Usually I'm focussing on the limitations imposed by feminism but today I'm looking specifically at traditionalism. In this case the existence of black-pilled ideologies has completely derailed everyone from what matters - traditionalists, feminists everyone:
we have a huge problem if GMs cannot survive to pass on their genes
Duh! Intelligent social men need to live long enough to pass on their genes. That's the problem if Lebron James is fucking around all the time with no intention of passing on any of his good genes with any of these women and there are intelligent, good looking, worldly men with genuinely attractive, virtuous, authentic traits who are obstacled in dating because of some of the social pressures I made. And that's me being nice to the top percentage of men who are successful with scores of women - assuming they all have good genes to pass on. There are many of them who have machiavellian traits: anti-intellectualism, anti-social behaviours, misogyny, racism and sometimes even blatant sociopathy. These men don't have any difficulty overcoming the same social barriers I mentioned earlier because they have the ability to "play the game" almost remorselessly - maybe even sociopathically. And that is the reason there are so many GMs failing in dating.
And that brings me back to the topic of the OP:
I don't care if I am the Common Denominator, It's NOT My Fault that I'm Single
Seriously. When guys talk about how feminism have held them back, how night clubs are shit, how there is a severe shortage of places to meet women, how there are a small minority of men having sex with a significant proportion of men we're not just looking for excuses. Many of us have the field experience, the repeated rejections, the blood sweat and tears to back up what we're saying: we've tried, we've fucking tried and we can all attest to the fact that this dating environment holds us back.
So what is the solution to the problem so many of us GMs are having in dating. I'll give you a clue. It's not red pill machiavellian strategies that are designed to mimic the traits of some of the alpha male bad boys I described above. You can't fake that shit if you have anything vaguely resembling a conscience or sense of ethics. That's not for us otherwise we would not be GMs to begin with and the proof is in my own post history where I asked a question about addressing the subjects of female history on r/asktrp. An endorsed contributor commented:
You're still stuck thinking that society and culture has your best interests at heart and that you somehow owe society and culture a debt to be "good" and "virtuous". This is pure bluepill thinking, allowing external influences and popular culture to delineate your actions.
This is why arguments about morality are not tolerated here... your morality is not mine is not Sleazy Steves...but since the definitions of what morality is best are asinine, also is using the term "good". What makes a "good man"
So stop spamming a redpill sub with your unrefined bluepill ideas.
... Wonder why your "good guys" can't get laid? Because they don't understand the reality of intersexual dynamics and refuse to play the game, instead espousing and perseverating on how things SHOULD be, ala JBP. Refusal to acknowledge reality. See how that's the base issue?
(As I said repeatedly in this post: we are not designed for this game. It is sick, twisted and Machiavellian in nature. If we were ever able to play this game and win, we would not be GMs in the first place. Conscience is not something you can just condition yourself out of, like the Red Pill naively assumes)
This user added:
Hypergamy - women want to elevate themselves to the highest branch they can reach.
Virtue plays exactly zero role in SMV, the criteria women use to determine which branch is higher. Just like "nice" or "good" these are known as container words because they sound nice, but every individual fill them up with the qualities specific to that individual, so they end up meaning nothing at all.
Your men are therefore displaying attributes that not only don't elevate their odds with women, but hinder them as you know the confident DNGAF "asshole" alpha is picked every time over a timid understanding communicative "good guy".
This is all TRP 101 stuff, it'll do you good to read the main TRP sidebar to start understanding this.
I don't have perfect solutions either but in my opinion, we do need:
A platform to discuss our views and raise awareness of our issues.
A platform such as r/GoodMenGoodValues (but in real life) for reasonably minded GMs to have the conversations they want to have:
- the fact that there are so many GMs falling behind in the dating world now and what can be done about it
- what the problems are in this sort of society, and what it means for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent & virtuous genes
- what roles gender politics play in this
- the biological and social conditions of women that contribute to this
- our individual experiences and struggles in the dating world for which we should be able to refer to ourselves as Good Men and whatever virtuous or otherwise desirable traits we may have as it is useful background information
- the warning of the Big Question which is posed by post-wall hypergamous women, a fate that no woman wants to end up with when, after years of ignoring and neglecting Good Men, ridiculing us, calling us "Nice GuysTM", they turn around and ask "but where have all the Good Men gone?" ... the same GMs that already pursued and were rejected, often harshly by these same women, and the same self-respecting GMs that no longer want anything to do with these same women.
Without feminist or traditionalist derailing tactics such as the ones mentioned above or these gems right here:
- "you're not a genuinely nice guy" or "Nice GuyTM!"
- "it's not enough to just be nice!"
- "you have covertly sexist attitudes"
- "you need to man up"
- "ethics have nothing to do with it"
- "pull your boot straps up son, because the world doesn't owe you!"
Furthermore, we need to encourage the public to stop paying attention to incel terrorists and other individuals just because they have committed and extreme act. This is another way the conversation GMs want to have has been derailed. Because we are not listened to - we are far too boring, far too sane, far too reasonable. Hey everyone - let's hear the damnatio memoriae instead: the Isla Vista Killer, the Torronto Killer, all of those other school shooters and spree killers. Who gives a fuck about boring, rationally-minded & sane approaches, right?
Intersectional-humanist systems of representation
(See this post here which explains about intersectional-humanism (IH)).
The only way to combat our feminist and traditionalist detractors is with a system of representation that can be seen as thorough and consistent unlike Modern Egalitarianism that has been hijacked. IH needs to be consistently anti-feminist, anti-traditionalist, anti-masculinist and to be taken seriously, it needs to develop into a real life form of activism that opposes all the insanity equally and also represents GMs from time to time.
State funded tutelage for young men who did not learn certain life skills during their adolescence, mostly due to the failure of education system or their parents.
These fundamentals include the teaching adolescent and young men the following things from an early age:
- learning how to lift with correct form and compound lifts (squats, deadlifts, etc.)
- learning good fashion
- learning how to cook, change tires, drive a car, know basic DIY
- learning how to be financially prudent
- learning how to be career oriented (i.e. have direction for the future) - and potential support with this (qualifications, references, etc.)
- learning how to hold conversations with friends/family acquaintances as well as being able to talk to strangers
All of these things seem to make men more attractive in the eyes of women, and it also gives men the social confidence/awareness to approach women in a calibrated way.