Why the dating scene favors men in the USA

[Cornfed]

This is what happens when females are given all the resources just for a having a v****a. Since there is no longer any basis for normal relationships with quality men, the females become insane perverts turning to sick shit such as bestiality with blacks.

My half cousin is banging Steve Jobs widow Laurene Jobs (20 billion)

Well there you have it. Once you socially engineer away natural/traditional female motives for relationships, there is no telling what crazy shit they will do. Incidentally, this tends to lend credence to Anatol's views on sati.

Lol, what are natural/traditional female motives for relationships?

The natural order of things is for females to be attracted to males of their own community/race/species who are somewhat superior to them; i.e. a bit stronger, smarter, more educated, more money, higher social status etc. The females are then looked after by the superior men and vicariously gain their social position. The couples then produce essentially copies of themselves, which as a basic principle of evolution is what we all want to do. The problem now is that evil Western regimes have impoverished and demeaned men while throwing money at females, so this has thrown a giant spanner into the works, whereby females simply cannot find a socially suitable mate. Lacking any ability to conceptualize the situation, the females just give up and become perverts f***ing dogs, blacks, each other etc. It is so sad.

That's why I said Alpha *potential*

I suppose you would think that females who f**k dogs do so because of the individual dogs' alpha potential. In fact what you see here is pure perversity on the part of a female who simply can't find a suitable mate in the sad situation she is placed in.

[MarcosZeitola]

A lot of people here seem to have this self-serving, masturbatory fantasy theory of a shy, introverted and more studious man being superior to a man with higher confidence, more activity and better social skills. The Revenge of the Nerds fantasy. It's all a little more complicated then that. I believe a lot of Western men nowadays are lacking in masculinity. There's a reason why a lot of women go for Middle Eastern and African men; too many white men have become wimps. And not just white men, but any Western man regardless of his color, is likely a lot weaker and softer then their third world counterparts.

The dating scene probably favors young, attractive people of either gender. With girls obviously having an easier time as they get to pick and choose who they want to spend the night (or their life) with, and men often having to settle for less at the end of the day. That's just the way things are, and we can do a lot to raise our own market value. Too many men, however, are clueless as to how to do so.

[BlackKnight]

[Cornfed]

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.

Yes, this is absolutely right. The trouble is that in totalitarian regimes like the modern West, the regimes can simply dictate the status of men irrespective of what the men are or do. This skewing of the natural order of things causes everyone to go insane.

[BlackKnight]

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.

Yes, this is absolutely right. The trouble is that in totalitarian regimes like the modern West, the regimes can simply dictate the status of men irrespective of what the men are or do. This skewing of the natural order of things causes everyone to go insane.

So you're basically agreeing Marcos Z by saying with today's totalitarian regimes (with control of everything) they are striping Western men of masculinity. The regimes can simply dictate the status of men irrespective of what the men are or do so. So most Western men are helpless rule following wimps thus unattractive to women. Right?

[Cornfed]

With girls obviously having an easier time as they get to pick and choose who they want to spend the night (or their life) with, and men often having to settle for less at the end of the day. That's just the way things are, and we can do a lot to raise our own market value. Too many men, however, are clueless as to how to do so.

Indeed, and the way to do this in the West was summarized by fshmidt somewhere. Stupidity and immorality are favored by Western sluts, so in order to get lots of sex you just need to get yourself lobotomized by having an icepick shoved into your amygdala (eliminating your morality) and your cerebral cortex (reducing your intelligence). That will instantly increase your market value.

Witness serial loser criminals who go in and out of prison for their entire lives. A lawyer who works with them was saying that they were all fathers who knew about 4 or 5 of their children, but he inferred that their actual number of children might be as high as 20 in many cases. Now, given that females don't get pregnant every time you f**k them and these guys spend most of their time locked up, in the time they are outside prison they must be getting more ass than a toilet seat from pretty much all classes of sluts. Hence if we were to evaluate ourselves by the standards of Western sluts, we should all aspire to be lobotomized in order to become criminal losers.

[MarcosZeitola]

So you're basically agreeing Marcos Z by saying with today's totalitarian regimes (with control of everything) they are striping Western men of masculinity. The regimes can simply dictate the status of men irrespective of what the men are or do so. So most Western men are helpless rule following wimps thus unattractive to women. Right?

I think men are shaped more by culture and upbringing then they are by the actions of their government. The weaker and more decadent a culture becomes, the more a child gets coddled and spoiled. The more a child gets coddled and spoiled, the more demanding and the less self-relient they will be when they grow up. This type of environment breeds entitled women that are too strong for their own good, and entitled men that are too weak for their own good.

In such an environment, as a sort of primal reaction, you will see women flocking to men who are more brutal and primitive. The type of man that would fling them over his shoulders, carry them into his cave and ravage them on the fur of a freshly hunted woolly mammoth. The Viking type in the West is a dying breed, so they go for the closest thing... a third world refugee, a criminal, a bodybuilder, a cage fighter. Or just about anyone who isn't a wimp.

[Cornfed]

So you're basically agreeing Marcos Z by saying with today's totalitarian regimes (with control of everything) they are striping Western men of masculinity. The regimes can simply dictate the status of men irrespective of what the men are or do so. So most Western men are helpless rule following wimps thus unattractive to women. Right?

Pretty much, and obviously this is not a good situation, but it is difficult to see what can be done about it short of overthrowing Western regimes.

[chanta76]

blackknight..why post on happierabroad if life was good for you in NYC?

I live in NYC . I know guys who are college educated and some are working professionals. It's true nowadays there are higher number of females in colleges than before. Because of that lopsidedness it's bit easier for a guy to score a girl but it's still not a cake walk. Women will date a guy that is either her equal or better than her. Guys on the other hand are more flexible as long as there is some attraction.

Is NYC a paradise ?...hell no. Is it better than other places.?.yes.

Girls in NYC are career women trying to climb the corporate ladder. Compare to other states people marry late here and also compare to other states women have kids later or sometimes none at all. THe down side of NYC women is feminism and left wing ideology is very strong here. So if you want to date a career driven feminist ..go ahead.. be my guess.

And have to disagree with some folks here..yes women are attracted to dominate man or alpha man. But NYC women at least the college educated ones on the average do not date men that are class below them no matter how macho they are.

For example let me use black men...There are the few college educated black men and you got the ghetto thuggish black man. What I notice is that the thuggish black guys date the thuggish black women. The college educate working professional black guy gets the white girls with the college educated black women competing for them. So yes getting a education and good profession helps BIG time..I see this with high power Asian men who are investment bankers with blonds on their arms. My old company I worked for we had a CEO who was balding and his waist line was longer than his height but married a really pretty girl.

You know what the kicker is ...they married educated college woman but because the guys make so much money the women don't work..and here is the downside if they get divorce...who do you think the court will take sides with. The women!

[Teal Lantern]

Speaking of Rupert Murdoch, does anyone know why he'd marry Wendi Deng? If anything, she looks down right evil. The eyes give it away. And I'm pretty sure that she's no angel under the hood, given the fact that she'd married a poor American sap for a green card, earlier on.

Maybe he figured since she already had the green card, her being with him meant "something more" or that his money would buy better behavior/loyalty. Or maybe he's just a bit reckless.
Besides, the attentions of a late 20s woman was probably a nice ego boost to a late 60s man.
I'm not anywhere near his age and I still have to call up my inner Admiral Ackbar, when some of them present (threaten?) me with a warm smile.

If anything, for an authentic billionaire, that should be reason enough, to keep her around as a plaything but little more.

Plus, she's wife number 3. WTF! Seriously, if 1 and 2 didn't work out, why go through with it, all over again?

Haven't you ever told yourself "they can't ALL be this bad"?

Seriously, the man was never wife free, since 1956. He'd never gone a period of time, w/o being hitched up.

This would mean he'd have never learned how to be alone or define himself outside of who was attached to his wallet.
When you hear people equating being alone with being lonely, this is a big part of why.

[gibraltar]

American men are at the top of the food chain. Most just don't know their value. USA always has some of the tallest, fastest, strongest men on the planet.

American Revolution, Civil war, and countless other struggles built our ancestors super tough and strong. Let's be honest, a lot of 3rd world guys are just straight weak. Risking their lives to come to a country built by American men is the ultimate sign of weakness. Some countries can't even feed themselves because the men are terrible providers and lack energy.

Nobody ever kicks a dead dog. American men receive a lot of hate and criticism because we are top notch. That's why people flock to the country our grandfathers built. Who wants to live in some 3rd world shithole built by the grandparents of a bunch of foreign immigrants?

The problem is American men have followed a bunch of lies through the media on how to act and behave. We are cutting ourselves down by not following the wisdom of older men who came before us. Now instead of men running the household, all you see is proprograda to encourage men to worship women instead of God.

As for the dating scene, foreign men destroyed it with their p***y begging and overall lack of ability to provide for their families in their own countries. Thus, flooding the dating market with a surplus of weak, pathetic men and now American men are stuck in a market with too many males competing for a dwindling amount of marriagable young females.

Fellas, the world is full of beautiful YOUNG women who want to help you achieve your goals and have your baby. They don't live in North America though. You must travel to reap the benefits. MILLIONS OF THEM WAITING FOR YOU.

Just ignore American dating scene. It's a toxic cesspool. Go east and enjoy the buffett!

[S_Parc]

Speaking of Rupert Murdoch, does anyone know why he'd marry Wendi Deng? If anything, she looks down right evil. The eyes give it away. And I'm pretty sure that she's no angel under the hood, given the fact that she'd married a poor American sap for a green card, earlier on.

Maybe he figured since she already had the green card, her being with him meant "something more" or that his money would buy better behavior/loyalty. Or maybe he's just a bit reckless.
Besides, the attentions of a late 20s woman was probably a nice ego boost to a late 60s man.
I'm not anywhere near his age and I still have to call up my inner Admiral Ackbar, when some of them present (threaten?) me with a warm smile.

Here's the thing, I'm a half Rupert's age, and I'd seen my share of Wendi Dengs out there. These women are derogatorily monikered as the "Ice Princess" Dragon Lady or Iron Butterfly (no, not the hard rock band). The thing is that they're obvious social climbers and that their initial friendliness is exactly that, a sales pitch, not too distinct from an opening episode of a series which does downhill very quickly. In the end, they'll rule your world and put you in the dungeon. If a billionaire can't figure that out, well, that's lame.

If anything, for an authentic billionaire, that should be reason enough, to keep her around as a plaything but little more.

Plus, she's wife number 3. WTF! Seriously, if 1 and 2 didn't work out, why go through with it, all over again?

Haven't you ever told yourself "they can't ALL be this bad"?

That's why I'd never accepted that HA opinion of South America carte blanche, that it was a haven for women. Many of those women are also demanding, once you get to know them. In addition, they have expectations of what the 'American family' is, which is why my Brazilian ex-GF couldn't accept the fact that I'd come from a dysfunctional household where no one could communicate for decades. IMHO, the reason why so many men don't see this is that of class distinctions. From a lower class, a woman is willing to tolerate more, to marry up to an American middle classer.

The reason why Mel "can't be all that bad" is that she knows all of the above, regarding women, and partially has a man's brain, looking up to her former military dad and his sense of order and so forth; plus not accepting the notion that women need to be conniving bitches to make something of their lives.

Seriously, the man was never wife free, since 1956. He'd never gone a period of time, w/o being hitched up.

This would mean he'd have never learned how to be alone or define himself outside of who was attached to his wallet.
When you hear people equating being alone with being lonely, this is a big part of why.

Yes, I concur. And from my pov, it's pathetic. In reality, many of us had to learn how to function alone, without the luxury of having alternate locations in Thailand, Brazil, etc, for R&R, while doing our business in NYC or LA. If I were Rupert, assuming that I could retire from the active executive role and simply be a passive angel investor for other operations, even if I didn't have Mel, I'd be quite content pursuing my hobbies while banging all over the world.

So for me, there will be no wife no 2, nevermind 3. This is it. And if for some reason, it doesn't work out with Mel (doubtful, but hypothetically), so be it, I can live alone.

[fightforlove]

Haven't these female-heavy gender ratios been disqualified when adjusted for age? (discounting singles over 30)? I have no doubt that New York is a better market by the numbers than San Jose, but the hyped articles about there being a 200,000+ surplus of single NY females includes women up to 60 years old.

Still, I'm intrigued just to take a business trip to NY just to see for myself, if I had the free time. Is the place truly crawling with luscious young females who are desperate to find a date because of some perceived lack of eligible men? I'd never wanna live there for other reasons: stratospheric COL, careerism, materialism, and feminism at level 10, big city topography, etc. I'll take the Midwest or Western United States or some other country any day.

[Balmung]

Haven't these female-heavy gender ratios been disqualified when adjusted for age? (discounting singles over 30)? I have no doubt that New York is a better market by the numbers than San Jose, but the hyped articles about there being a 200,000+ surplus of single NY females includes women up to 60 years old.

Yes:

http://jonathansoma.com/singles/#

Play with the sliders and settings... singles ages 20-34, cities of 250k+, relative values: the whole country is a sausage fest. NYC has 38 extra single men per 1000 singles; LA has 77, and Naples (FL) has 160. (!!) The only cities with more single women are Mobile, AL with 3; and Jackson, MS with 27. That's it.

[Ghost]

.