Why the dating scene favors men in the USA

Apparently in the USA there is a lack of ‘educated’ men to match the ‘educated’ women. Interesting article:


In 2012, 34 percent more women than men graduated from American colleges, and the U.S. Department of Education expects this gap to reach 47 percent by 2023. The imbalance has spilled over into the post-college dating scene. According to data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, there are now 5.5 million
college-educated women in the United States between the ages of 22 and 29 vs. 4.1 million such men. In other words, the dating pool for straight, millennial, college graduates has four women for every three men. No wonder some men are in no rush to settle down and more women are giving up on what used to be called “playing
hard to get.”

These demographics represent the true dating apocalypse, as stacks of social science show how dating and mating behavior is influenced by prevailing sex ratios. When there are plenty of marriageable men, dating culture emphasizes courtship and romance, and men generally must earn more to attract a wife. But when gender ratios skew toward women, as they do today among college grads, the dating culture becomes more sexualized. The good news, at least according to the work of psychologists and sex-ratio pioneers Marcia Guttentag and Paul Secord, is that people tend to have better sex when ratios skew female. The downside? Women
frequently wind up being treated as sex objects, and men are more inclined to exercise the option to delay marriage and play the field. As I note in my book, today’s uneven gender ratios “add up to sexual nirvana for heterosexual men, but for heterosexual women — especially those who put a high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock — they represent a demographic time bomb.”

Of course, these lopsided numbers might not matter if young, college-educated women become more willing to date — and, eventually, marry — across socioeconomic lines. But according to separate research by University of Pennsylvania economist Jeremy Greenwood and by UCLA sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare, educational intermarriage is less common today than at any
point over the past half century.

Because the pool of college-educated women is much larger, the unwillingness of college-educated men to consider working-class women as life partners has little statistical effect on their marriage prospects. But for college-educated women, excluding working-class guys makes their dating math much more challenging. If there is an undersupply of men in the college-educated dating pool, there is going to be an oversupply of men in the non-college-educated one. Indeed, there are 1.5 million more non-college-educated men than women among Americans age 22 to 29. Bottom line: New York City women looking for a match would be better off, statistically at least, at a fireman’s bar in Staten Island than a wine bar on the Upper East Side.

The dynamics, and numbers, shift when we expand the conversation from different-sex to same-sex dating. Obviously the lesbian dating market is unaffected by how many men there are, just as the dating market for gay men is unaffected by how many women there are. However, gender ratios within the LGBT community do affect different-sex dating, oddly enough. According to Gary Gates, a UCLA researcher and a leading expert on LGBT demographics, cities known for being LGBT-friendly (New York, Washington, Miami, etc.) have disproportionate numbers of gay men, but not of lesbians. Consequently, the different-sex dating markets in these cities are worse for women than the overall census numbers imply. DATE-ONOMICS illustrates that Manhattan’s hetero, college-grad, under-30 dating pool has three women for every two men — which, like it or not, is exactly the sort of sexual playground for men portrayed by Vanity Fair.

Regardless of orientation, not all women, of course, place a premium on marriage, or even monogamy. But for the straight, college-educated woman who is eager to get married and start a family, the question becomes how best to deal with a dating market in which men have too much leverage.

Dating and marrying across socioeconomic lines — “mixed-collar” marriages, if you will — is one possible remedy. I’d also urge marriage-minded women not to put off getting serious about dating because the math will only get worse over time. Call it the
musical chairs problem: Nearly everybody finds a chair in the first round. By the last round, however, there’s a 50 percent chance of not getting one. Similarly, in a dating pool that starts out with 140 women and 100 men, the gender ratio among those still
single soars from 1.4:1 to more than 2:1 once half the women get married.

Another solution (at least for the frustrated women interviewed by Vanity Fair) would be to quit Manhattan, which is one of the worst dating markets in the country for educated young women. Indeed, their new mantra should probably be “Go West, Young Woman.” The Western part of the country, in general, has more balanced gender ratios than those found east of the Mississippi River. California and Colorado, for example, each have 20 percent more college-grad women than men age 22 to 29 compared with 36 and 41 percent, respectively, in Illinois and North Carolina.

Unsurprisingly, men tend to be less — I’ll say it — promiscuous when women are more scarce. Consider Santa Clara County, Calif., home to Silicon Valley and the only well-populated area in the country where male college grads outnumber female ones by a significant margin. There, it’s women who have the dating leverage. “I think it’s pretty good for the girls,” one single woman told the San Jose Mercury News a few years back. “You can be more picky,” because guys “have to try harder.”

Perhaps as a result, 33 percent of college-educated women age 22 to 29 are married vs. 13 percent in Manhattan. Santa Clara County’s marriages happen to be more stable too: Among college-grad women in their 30s, 4 percent are separated or divorced vs. 7 percent in Manhattan.

That makes a lot of sense, there are armies of men who look average or below average, have lousy social skills and are very shy and reserved, but nevertheless expect women to throw themselves at them and are shocked to find this is not the case.

Similarly, you have a lot of men who have been brainwashed by today’s “Women can do everything men can do” bullshit, and now believe women could (and should!) be the ones making the first move. This does not happen because, once again, they aren’t as appealing as they think they are. These men come up with a million of theories on how society is corrupt and women are evil, conveniently ignoring their own part in their misfortune: their own inactivity, and unwillingness to change.

Successful men need not bother themselves with complicated theories on the state of womanhood, they don’t need lifestyle gurus or dating coaches. They’re just going through the motions, and allowing nature to take it’s course. And sometimes, when nature takes it’s course, certain men find themselves left out. Men who are too lazy, or too prideful, to look at alternatives.

How men get sex

The real natural environment of hominids was less the savanna than the social group. If you were a hominid male, and people paid attention to you, carved your approval, shut up and listened when you spoke, that meant you were a leader. Men who commanded attention commanded access to community support. That meant a good nest-maker. Humans compete less for territory than for rank. Territory and possessions are only symbols of rank. He who controls the attention is high status and sexually attractive. That’s why rock stars get more ass than CEOs. The bullet points on your resume don’t elicit the same visceral Pleistocene reaction as fame (that’s why it helps to be a braggart). I don’t care whether you are a primate or a pipefish, all social systems among animal are hierarchical. Our ancestral tribal societies were economically unequal. A whole lot of hominids were competing for a small number of high-status positions in the tribe. This means only a few ended up on top, a few on the bottom and the rest somewhere in the middle. The human race is a race. The real Pleistocene currency by which a hunter was ranked was not cash but attention.

The stupidity of complaining about affirmative action

Nice article I edited to fit here:

There’s really no great mystery about bureaucracies. Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence isn’t what bureaucracies are about. Bureaucracies are about keeping the routine going. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. The head of Bureaucracies are commonplace, ordinary, usual and common. They have no genius for organizing or initiative or even order, no particular learning or intelligence, no distinguishing characteristics at all. Just the ability to keep the routine going. What gets you up in a bureaucracy is a talent for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors, picking a powerful mentor and riding his coattails until it’s time to stab him in the back. Jumping through hoops. Getting along by going along. Being whatever other people want you to be, so that it finally comes to seem that, like the manager of the Central Station, you have nothing inside you at all. Not taking stupid risks like trying to change how things are done or question why they’re done. This is the perfect description of the kind of person who tends to prosper in the bureaucratic environment. Obviously becoming self employed or an entrepreneur is the normal reaction to this situation but most people can’t really think so they descend into rather silly and vindictive diatribes.

I tell you this to forewarn you, because I promise you that you will meet these people and you will find yourself in environments where what is rewarded above all is conformity. I tell you so you can decide to be a different kind of leader. And I tell you for one other reason. As I thought about these things and put all these pieces together—the kind of students I had, the kind of leadership they were being trained for, the kind of leaders I saw in my own institution—I realized that this is a national problem. We have a crisis of leadership in this country, in every institution. Not just in government. Look at what happened to American corporations in recent decades, as all the old dinosaurs like General Motors or TWA or U.S. Steel fell apart. Look at what happened to Wall Street in just the last couple of years.

Finally—and I know I’m on sensitive ground here—look at what happened during the first four years of the Iraq War. We were stuck. It wasn’t the fault of the enlisted ranks or the noncoms or the junior officers. It was the fault of the senior leadership, whether military or civilian or both. We weren’t just not winning, we weren’t even changing direction. What we have now are the greatest technocrats the world has ever seen, people who have been trained to be incredibly good at one specific thing, but who have no interest in anything beyond their area of exper­tise. What we don’t have are leaders

Anyone who’s been paying attention for the last few years understands that the changing nature of warfare means that officers, including junior officers, are required more than ever to be able to think independently, creatively, flexibly. To deploy a whole range of skills in a fluid and complex situation. Lieutenant colonels who are essentially functioning as provincial governors in Iraq, or captains who find themselves in charge of a remote town somewhere in Afghanistan. People who know how to do more than follow orders and execute routines.

We have a crisis of leadership in America because our overwhelming power and wealth, earned under earlier generations of leaders, made us complacent, and for too long we have been training leaders who are brain-dead. Being a good leader now means being a good follower. What we don’t have, in other words, are thinkers. People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army—a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.

The Hereditarian Theory of Intelligence Is Stupid

Can we really increase our intelligence? The answer is yes.

A renowned article published in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues challenged this immutable view of intelligence. The study had 33 adolescents, who were 12 to 16-years-old when the study initiated. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then tested them again with the same measurement tools. The fluctuations in IQ were outstanding: not about a couple points, but 20-plus IQ points. These changes in IQ scores, according to the researchers, were not random — they tracked elegantly with structural and functional brain imaging. Thus, there is also an important group of scientists that maintain that many of the changes in IQ are correlated to changes in the environment, particularly schooling.

“It’s analogous to fitness. A teenager who is athletically fit at 14 could be less fit at 18 if they stopped exercising. Conversely, an unfit teenager can become much fitter with exercise.”

Furthermore, there is also a certain number of studies that have shown brain changes after several kinds of educational regimens. The study about Tokyo taxi drivers is a especially distinguished one. Scientists conducted memory, visual and spatial information tests and took brain scans using MRI of 79 male trainee Tokyo taxi drivers at the beginning of their training regimen. At the beginning of the study, no variance was found in their brain structure or memory. Three to four years later, however, scientists found a considerable increase in grey matter in the posterior hippocampi, among the 39 trains who performed as taxi drivers. Naturally, this change was not observed in the non-taxi drivers. Thus, this kind of studies suggest that the brain can change to accommodate new knowledge, so future programs for lifelong learning are possible.

What we immediately notice is a long list of enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples across temporal, geographical, and political lines, variations so large as to raise severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ favored by white spermicide and perhaps also quietly held by many others.

Consider, for example, the results from Germany obtained prior to its 1991 reunification. Lynn and Vanhanen present four separate IQ studies from the former West Germany, all quite sizable, which indicate mean IQs in the range 99–107, with the oldest 1970 sample providing the low end of that range. Meanwhile, a 1967 sample of East German children produced a score of just 90, while two later East German studies in 1978 and 1984 came in at 97–99, much closer to the West German numbers.

These results seem anomalous from the perspective of strong genetic determinism for IQ. To a very good approximation, East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable, while the recorded rise in East German scores of 7–9 points in just half a generation seems even more difficult to explain.

To sum up, it is not fully clear What intelligence is, and hence How to directly increase it. Nonetheless, we can consider intelligence, for practical purposes, as a starting point in life. Naturally, we are born with certain capacities and particular features, but it is later in life when we discover and develop them, regardless of our individual genetic background. Thus, instead of frustratingly trying to increase your “G” factor (since we do not have a general consensus and determinant scientific evidence yet), what you can do is focus in your multiple crystallized intelligences: the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. If you are a scientist, observe and analyze information; if you are a philosopher, organize it and turn it into knowledge; if you are an artist, interpret it. Different areas of intelligence have different weights of importance in each person’s occupational life, and you can definitely get better at specific activities through practice and discipline.

Is homosexuality cause by virus during pregnancy?

A virus can do all kinds of things including causing stupidity in people, see: virus-could-be-making-you-dumber/

I’ve long suspected the “gay” flipped sex-designation attraction region of brain (flipped being descriptive in that males and female brains regions that form the basic response the opposite sex, resemble the opposite sex’s brain region) was due to a virus, since the numbers of affected individuals is almost the damn same as the numbers for genetic predisposition to a virus type conditions. Aka, it takes a virus-open-doorway to allow them to invade and alter the brain during pregnancy.

I know the “bisexual” behaviors resemble the child’s impulse control type lack of emotional and behavioral conditions. The brain technically takes until the middle 20s to fully and normally “mature” and form critical decision making abilities commonly attributed to being an adult. The child formation is anything that ends up lacking the fully coherent brain interloops or has blocked pathways or otherwise degraded connectivity across the emotional-frontal cortex loop/interconnection feedbacks, without that being well connected the brain’s patterns will be more stunted in the impulse control and your basic adult human maturity will be lacking… aka the peter pan syndrome will be present, lacking any desire to take on responsibility and desire to always be distracted by shiny toys.

If you know any gay males, you’d know they have severe impulse control issues. So much that they often had/have way too many short term sexual encounters per year with different people, meaning hundreds of partners within a few years and that is usually fairly consistent for their entire lives. I forget the studies since it was so long ago but the ones that covered pre-HIV epidemic gay behaviors showed that it was common for SF gay guys to have more than 100 partners per year, many times the normal behavior is the point and where I got that first idea that the inhibited maturation of the brain would explain their behaviors.

Internet Forum Psychology explained

I enjoy the company of those who effortlessly set themselves apart from all the typical wastes of skin that infest Internet Forums. Congratulations on earning yourselves a mention in my post, you’ve earned it. In all honesty, dealing with the typical forum/blog crowd day in, day out does grow a little tiresome sometimes. Let’s take a closer look at them.

At the bottom of the pecking order, you have the insecure people. The insecure females display the trait much more prominently than the males, and often find themselves easy prey to the petty leaders and smart assed followers commonly found in the forums. Due to being of an impressionable disposition, members of this species will often find themselves subject to the will of those above them, and subsequently leave the forums in anger, feeling downtrodden and shamed, or become a pawn to the “leaders.” It is more common for the males of this species to attempt to join forces with those they perceive to be dominant, as the females tend to be more withdrawn and hormonally redundant.

Next, you have the leaders. The leaders are quite adept at formulating scathing one-liners and pseudo-arguments to throw at members of weaker species, but when confronted by a passionate, confident and sometimes burnt-out individual, the leader will beat a hasty retreat shortly after getting in a parting shot in a vain attempt to save face. While the leaders may fool their followers with “courage” displayed during the most trying of times, they always fail to fool themselves. This results in the leaders losing enthusiasm for their forum spamming antics and a gradual decline in the amount of time spent attacking others until the leader finally gets a life of his own, leaving his followers hanging. Perhaps not surprisingly, female leaders are practically non-existent. Followers on forums show all the common characteristics displayed by followers in all walks of life. They rely almost completely on the “strength of character” exhibited by their leaders, and any time their leaders appear to falter, the followers grow weaker.

There have been reports from my correspondents hidden within various internet forums that the weakening and eventual departure of forum leaders often results in the followers growing to hate themselves and ultimately reaching a near death state before the intervention of my colleagues and the localized counselors. Followers derive a moderate amount of skill at spouting one-liners from the examples set by the leaders, but fear not if you are attacked by one, as they are very easily defeated. An interesting fact to take note of is that female followers are more tenacious than their male counterparts. My team of behavioral psychologists attributes this to deep-rooted anger felt by the females due to their self-perceived inferiority.

The hater is arguably the king of Internet Forums. Empowered by rage, haters are easily able to overcome all adversaries with a plethora of offensive, yet deep, meaningful retorts. These comments made by haters often bear within them an alarmingly dense concentration of truth, which serves as a painful reminder to the target of his/her personal failings. Other species have been witnessed attempting to pass themselves off as haters in order to appear substantially less appetizing in the eyes of members of stronger species. It is to be noted that these fake haters can be spotted by their awkward, badly timed attempts to instigate flame wars. A true hater leads his life harmoniously, joining the forum battles only when the opportunities present themselves.

Female haters are shunned by the male haters, who promptly identify them as fake haters due to their lack of emotional purity, eagerness to please and inconsistency in their ability to uphold the directives of hate. *The directives of hate print themselves out in Dr House VISION, like Robocop’s prime directives* .

The Internet Forum administrator is a remote, scared individual with a grossly disproportionate amount of power. While he may try to convey a facade of intelligence, this is easily exposed by naturally stronger species and when threatened by a member of such a species, the administrator will hastily delete the profile of his opponent so as to save face and appear powerful in the eyes of the weaker, impressionable females. Female administrators “earn” their status by sharing images of themselves nude with the male administrators and subsequently sleep their way up. This is a common promotional strategy employed by millions of women worldwide in order to ascend rank-based command structures rapidly. Despite the innovation of the said techniques, the greatest responsibility a female administrator can ever have is that of a lowly enforcer, sworn to enforce the rules and terms of service the misguided male administrators dictate.

How the parasite T. gondii affects the brain

Most people around the world have various health issues that affect their behaviors. In eastern Europe, 55 percent are infected with the parasite T. gondii that affects the brain. Americans will be happy to hear that this parasite resides in far fewer of them, though a still substantial portion: 10 to 20 percent (mostly in pet loving areas like the SF bay area, Portland, Washington DC and Seattle) are infected. Here is an interesting article that goes into a bit of detail.


In the Soviet-stunted economy, animal studies were way beyond Flegr’s research budget. But fortunately for him, 30 to 40 percent of Czechs had the latent form of T. gondii, so plenty of students were available “to serve as very cheap experimental animals.” He began by giving them and their parasite-free peers standardized personality tests—an inexpensive, if somewhat crude, method of measuring differences between the groups. In addition, he used a computer-based test to assess the reaction times of participants, who were instructed to press a button as soon as a white square popped up anywhere against the dark background of the monitor.

The subjects who tested positive for the parasite had significantly delayed reaction times. Flegr was especially surprised to learn, though, that the protozoan appeared to cause many sex-specific changes in personality. Compared with uninfected men, males who had the parasite were more introverted, suspicious, oblivious to other people’s opinions of them, and inclined to disregard rules. Infected women, on the other hand, presented in exactly the opposite way: they were more outgoing, trusting, image-conscious, and rule-abiding than uninfected women.

The results meshed well with the questionnaire findings. Compared with uninfected people of the same sex, infected men were more likely to wear rumpled old clothes; infected women tended to be more meticulously attired, many showing up for the study in expensive, designer-brand clothing.

Infected men tended to have fewer friends, while infected women tended to have more. And when it came to downing the mystery fluid, reports Flegr, “the infected males were much more hesitant than uninfected men. They wanted to know why they had to do it. Would it harm them?” In contrast, the infected women were the most trusting of all subjects. “They just did what they were told,” he says.

Why men and women reacted so differently to the parasite still mystified him. After consulting the psychological literature, he started to suspect that heightened anxiety might be the common denominator underlying their responses. When under emotional strain, he read, women seek solace through social bonding and nurturing. In the lingo of psychologists, they’re inclined to “tend and befriend.” Anxious men, on the other hand, typically respond by withdrawing and becoming hostile or antisocial. Perhaps he was looking at flip sides of the same coin.

Closer inspection of Flegr’s reaction-time results revealed that infected subjects became less attentive and slowed down a minute or so into the test. This suggested to him that Toxoplasma might have an adverse impact on driving, where constant vigilance and fast reflexes are critical. He launched two major epidemiological studies in the Czech Republic, one of men and women in the general population and another of mostly male drivers in the military. Those who tested positive for the parasite, both studies showed, were about two and a half times as likely to be in a traffic accident as their uninfected peers.


T. gondii can disconnect circuits in the brain, which might help to explain why infected rats lose their aversion to cat odor. Just as startling, reports Sapolsky, the parasite simultaneously is “able to hijack some of the circuitry related to sexual arousal” in the male rat—probably, he theorizes, by boosting dopamine levels in the reward-processing part of the brain. So when the animal catches a whiff of cat scent, the fear center fails to fully light up, as it would in a normal rat, and instead the area governing sexual pleasure begins to glow. “In other words,” he says, “Toxo makes cat odor smell sexy to male rats.”

The good news is parasites can be removed from the intestine using vinegar (5.5oz/175lbs) for a few days longer than the length of the gestation/life cycle. I have 40lbs of diatomaceous earth sitting outside my door but vinegar seems like a safer bet for parasites due to it easily destroying the oocyte stage of the parasites (you just have to be able to drink it once a day for longer than their life cycle to eradicate them) and also enhancing the body’s ability to degrade virus envelopes and decrease the fungi replication in combination with various essential oils. In other words, the acidic environment deters them from propagation and creates an inhospitable living arrangement where they have little chance of survival. Diatomaceous earth is extremely effective at both chelating heavy metals, acting as a magnet and pulling out gram positive pathogens from your digestive system as well as acting physically on the parasites through a process of dehydration whereby the amorphous silica and its jagged edges (a type of fossilized algae) works its way into the skin/exoskeleton and literally sucks out all the moisture killing eventually killing them. However, not sure how safe it is…

But the REAL issues with people is bacteria. It’s always bacteria… even viruses don’t have enough genes to encode full systematic modifications of their host but they can f**k up specific tissue or modify the immune system. Bacteria and fungi f**k up a lot more… Once you get these types of immune problems, you have to selectively rebuild the intestine’s integrity and outside of rebuilding the lining and immune system with l-glutamine (found in all protein sources, stored in muscle and circulating it via exercising) there’s no way to reset the immune system except for a massive green tea EGCG cleanse to wipe out the bad bacteria biofilms and take the full set of beneficial probiotics. Everything else is maintenance and rarely does more than mediocre help.

Once you regain your full health and realize how much energy food has, no matter how “unhealthy” it is — when there are no bad bacteria present — you realize that the main stress on the body is bad bacteria producing toxins when they are given their favorite food. The whole health industry is bullshit. Almost all the most advanced research is pointing towards the gut as the source of all the problems and health issues, it’s more than insane if you full keep up with all the research on just how much bacteria can alter humans.

As the article says: affected people will mostly demonstrate subtle shifts of behavior. But in a small number of cases, [Toxo infection] may be linked to schizophrenia and other disturbances associated with altered dopamine levels—for example, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and mood disorders. The rat may live two or three years, while humans can be infected for many decades, which is why we may be seeing these severe side effects in people. Schizophrenia did not rise in prevalence until the latter half of the 18th century, when for the first time people in Paris and London started keeping cats as pets. The so-called cat craze began among “poets and left-wing avant-garde Greenwich Village types,” says Torrey, but the trend spread rapidly—and coinciding with that development, the incidence of schizophrenia soared.

Since the 1950s, he notes, about 70 epidemiology studies have explored a link between schizophrenia and T. gondii. When he and his colleague Robert Yolken, a neurovirologist at Johns Hopkins University, surveyed a subset of these papers that met rigorous scientific standards, their conclusion complemented the Prague group’s discovery that schizophrenic patients with Toxo are missing gray matter in their brains. Torrey and Yolken found that the mental illness is two to three times as common in people who have the parasite as in controls from the same region.

Human-genome studies, both scientists believe, are also in keeping with that finding—and might explain why schizophrenia runs in families. The most replicated result from that line of investigation, they say, suggests that the genes most commonly associated with schizophrenia relate to the immune system and how it reacts to infectious agents. So in many cases where the disease appears to be hereditary, they theorize, what may in fact be passed down is an aberrant or deficient immune response to invaders like T. gondii.

Note:  With T. Gondii, you don’t feel sick and your body is over reacting to everything so you don’t get sick but you’re burning through nutrients too fast. So unless you eat super healthy, you die quickly with T. Gondii… Some chicken study showed how it attacked the intestine and showed all types of effects, including weight loss and much larger deviations in weight. Along with nerve damage, lower neuron counts at various nerve centers in the body, etc

German women

German women are kinda like liberal American women without fake smiles or femininity (soon they will start growing dicks). Most German women are so unfeminine and boring that you get the same excitement as you do with a box of nails. Of course, you can not compare German women on vacation with the one at home. On vacation things are very different.

Germany has a no “asking girls out” culture. They become friends first and avoid showing any particular interest in dating except for special way of “staring” and certain little signs of thoughtfulness from both sides. If that ends in a relationship-good, if not, they stay friends or just don’t meet any longer. It’s a general German culture phenomenon. Dating, flirting, asking someone out like we are used to in the Anglosphere is virtually non-existent in Germany. They tend to be friendly and show no indication of wanting anything other than friendship and then, years later, out of the blue declare their undying love for you.

German woman have no clue whatsoever how to dress well. Most of them are either downright clueless about fashion or don´t even try to look good. This is especially true for the girls who come from poor families. Many also go for boyish clothes. Looking good/feminine is just not a priority for most German woman. Asian trannies look far more feminine than most German women.

Germany is heavily influenced by feminism. There are basically no family values left. Well educated women often (about 40%) don´t want children as they prefer to concentrate on their career. Divorce rate is above 50% and rising.

German society is extremely individualistic, even within families there is very little unity. Old people get sent to a retirement home. Children are supposed to get out of the house as soon as possible. Parents are often not willing to support their children and rather want them to make it on their own. On the other side children are not respecting parents and older people in general.

Lower class German women love to party, drink alcohol, smoke and do drugs. In fact, a girl not partying frequently is going to be seen as odd. They also have lots of one night stands.

German women are flawed many ways… to summarize, here is a quick list:

– not feminine in their looks
– no family values
– too much focus on work
– not willing to accept the traditional role of a mother
– often times not willing to have children at all
– most of the better educated ones are wasting their time trying to improve the world (being an environmentalist, feminist, etc.)
– awkward to have a conversation with them, they often try to force their opinion onto you, if you want to hear it or not
– not feminine in their behaviour… there really is nothing feminine about German women at all, many of them take pride in behaving like a boy and being “practical” without typical female character traits. some man may like this kind of attitude, but i find it weird and rather boring.
– not willing to take care of the home, wants to split these duties 50/50 with their husband/bf
– many also don´t seem to know respectable boundaries with men when they are in a relationship… most will think it´s OK to have several close male friends with which they may or may not have had sex before… another thing is going out partying alone including getting drunk at clubs.

To be fair, there are a few pros as well:

– they are not as materialistic as American women as Germany offers a lot of social security

A lot of men are frustrated in dating because they lack MALE testosterone

The single biggest reason men hold positions of power is that biologically they are driven to be more ambitious and take more risks than women. Many studies have been released in recent years (several conducted by women) showing that testosterone drives risk-taking, domineering, powerful behavior. Guess which gender has exponentially more testosterone? But what happens when men lack testosterone? One of the reasons Northern California is such a social-graveyard is men here are actually women i.e. passive, unambitious, lacking physical and mental willpower, and unwilling to aggressively pursue goals or fulfill sexual desires (the typical SF bay area guy sleeps with subpar leftovers).

A woman’s biological imperative is to acquire the resources to produce offspring, as well as the protection granted by a strong capable mate. As a result of this men produce protection and physical resources.

The exchange which is prevalent in the majority of nature is that males provide resources while females provide physical gratification in the forms of nurture, nourishment, and physical affection.

Of course, nowadays, in the modern world — in major cities, women are married to careers that provides all the resources to produce offspring. Hence why out of wedlock children has gone from 5% back in the 1950s, 6% in the 1960s, to 45+% in the 2000s… No need to have strong family units. So society produces weaker men (especially in cities) to be used as dildos, slaves and entertainment. Most guys enjoy their sperm donor status — i.e. not all men are complaining. They are usually losers with no real depth.

The truth is that the only time you truly *love* a girl, completely, is when you practically worship her and don’t want to have sex with any other girl. For a man’s love consists of wanting to have and not the renunciation and giving away of a woman’s love. Nevertheless, wanting to have always comes to an end with having. It is actually man’s more refined and suspicious lust for **possession** that rarely admits his **having** and then only late, and thus permits his love to persist. It is even possible for his love to increase after the surrender: he will not readily concede that a woman should have nothing more to give him. She becomes the girl whose beauty you are reminded of when you see another girl (that’s why I only date bitches 8+ in looks) — that is when you know you are in love with a girl or true woman… That woman may or may not accept you as a mate but when you feel like that, it doesn’t matter what the world thinks, you want to meet her parents and be there for her and your ability to solve problems goes up and up, your own problems included. You can take over the world, if you know enough about the world, and there’s nothing that will stop you except her voice and her touch. That’s what love does to a guy.

The problem is that you can date a hundred girls and women, and not one will be bring out that type of dedication in your soul BeCaUsE it takes a few months to a year to induce that desire and depth of passion in your neocortex, meaning every time you fuck a girl after a few dates you are jumping the gun and screwing yourself out of a more meaningful relationship that doesn’t involve being a sperm donor / dildo to girls who are enjoying their new found dominance and little boys who watch porn all day, play video games, and are distracted by technology all day long. The same goes for women who are after sex, they just feel the physical relationship and nothing else will form except the chemical nuances of sex and attachment through that.

So, from the neocortex perspective, dating for short term fun from both the male and female perspective is the problem that debases the maturity of both sexes and utterly destroys the problem solving potential of a huge number of humans.

Unless we bring back longer than a year long courtship and child rearing pursuits between the sexes, AKA longer than a few dick rides and a few movies, we are facing the equivalent of a female dominated world where the males are so submissive that they don’t mind being sperm donors and retailed/market-brainwashed into being a consumer of technology.

But, the truth is, no human that goes through the public school system is even half as smart as they need to be to be able to engage the mind of the opposite sex and thus you might as well hammer away because you aren’t going to be satisfied by their discourse level — there’s the reason they stopped talking about communication as intercourse after all, as debased as you can get today’s sex is not intercourse without communication patterns that stimulate the mind — the brain is the largest sex organ by mass, not to mention sensory perception and feedback, creativity and desire and planning etc.

Why even discuss this issue with dating? Wait around for your robostitute


The robots win, no war, no bombs, no grand battles or even whimpers of dying humans… just the sound of ejaculation and robot emulating the moans of the opposite sex, as good as any porn they said but it was better than any other sex a guy or girl could have — as the human race fell asleep after great sex and the robots took over peacefully.

No skynet, just xxxskynet brain-stimulation domination of the sex organs, as the human race withers away into the trashcans of the 21st century.