Skip to content

The Stock Market & Mate Selection

November 13, 2009
tags: ,
by

Choosing a mate is an economic decision when you realize a person is a collection of attributes some more profitable than others.  Preferences over attributes will allow opportunities for utility-maximizing decisions.  Moving from person 1 to person 2 will see trading off (a little less of this, for a little more of that); which attributes will make a given choice the best decision? economy of dating

Let’s look at purchasing stocks and compare it to mate choice, shall we?

  1. Read as much as you can about the subject, be it the stock market, publicly traded companies, or finance.   Websites are abound with information.  The more you read, the more you will know what to look for in a company.   Man or woman should be learning as much about the opposite sex as they can.  Roissy, Spearhead, Girl Game are sample sites to choose from. 
  2. Think of products you like or companies that provide quality or popular services. Look for attributes in a mate that are of interest to you – start with what you definitively know (e.g. church boys versus bar boys).
  3. Research the parent company that manufactures the product or service.  Get to know your love interest by looking at who their friends and family are.  For example,  meeting the parents: sometimes it’s amusing or scary, depending on how you look at it. (Watch the two vids – you’ll get it.)
  4. Look at the company’s financial statements. It takes lots of time to learn how to analyze these properly, but you should definitely have looked at them before investing in a company. It’s very important to know how the potential mate handles their finances – know what questions to ask. 
  5. Decide how much money you are willing to risk. Imagine you were to lose all the money you invested, how much would you put in?  Analyze how much you’re willing to put into this relationship, what would happen if you over-invested with this particular mate?  What are the risks? 
  6. Enter an order for a certain number of shares after you have followed the stock for a couple weeks to see where it is. Ease into the relationship slowly, test it. 
  7. Learn how to identify stocks with criteria that may indicate potential for future price appreciation. Keep your eyes wide open. Learn how to identify quality. 
  8. Determine a method of knowing when to be buying a stock and when to avoid adding new money to your investments. Date a lot this way you’ll know how to identify the real McCoy. 
  9. Learn technical analysis tools like candlestick charting, EMA, MACD, etc. to better time your entries and exits.  Learn Game to better time your entries and exits from relationships.  
 Stock choice tips ‘stolen’ from Wikihow.com

A wise friend/reader puts it another way:

If a car manufacturer designed a car that required 100 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles, needed its tires to be changed every 200 miles, whose engine broke every 1000 miles, etc., that car wouldn’t even be brought to the design board, let alone be manufactured. That car would be one heck of a “high maintenance” car.

A girl/guy with good fundamentals, on the other hand,  is all the more opportunity for a good LTR. Good entrepreneurs, designers, investors, etc., all look at the potential winners of tomorrow. That’s how you get a serious ROI (return on investment). You build/create something that hasn’t been built/created, and you reap the rewards handsomely. Nobody got rich by buying today’s winners, say a stock at $148, and selling it the next quarter.

So my friends invest wisely for your futures.

I’m off on a mini-holiday to the US – so if any comments are made directly to me – I won’t be ignoring you – I’ll be shopping and helping the US’s embattled economy like a good Canadian neighbor should. 

62 Comments leave one →
  1. November 13, 2009 7:56 am

    aoefe:

    interesting analogy.

    you should check out this article on Psychology Today’s blog.

    It talks about “loss aversion” in behavioral economics and its application to the mating game. In short, we are still in our primal state in that we’d rather forgo loss than gain something of equal value because it was much more necessary to keep our scarce resources that were imperative to survival. Gain was of less importance.

    Men are less risk averse than women. Depending on the mating strategy employed, men have to accept risk when vying for a mate. Those that were too risk-averse wouldn’t procure a mate and their aversion would be sifted from the gene pool.

    This doesn’t apply directly to your post, but its along the same financial vein.

  2. November 13, 2009 10:04 am

    What, no stop-loss orders?

  3. Derek permalink
    November 13, 2009 12:13 pm

    oooh innovative. hey about the regurgitating same obvious game and relationship advice using a different metaphorical category? maybe sports? football would work. how do you evaluate the right player to draft and invest in? do spend a high draft pick taking the wide receiver with flash or trade down for the left tackle with excellent fundamentals and work ethic? oh my!! you could get a whole post out of it.

  4. Willard Libby permalink
    November 13, 2009 12:58 pm

    I’ll be shopping and helping the US’s embattled economy like a good Canadian neighbor should.

    Remember to use real money when you’re in the USA.

    We don’t take that phony Canadian money.

    But I see you’ve started to color yours, taking a hint from your Northern neighbor eh? -aoefe

  5. November 13, 2009 3:07 pm

    this is good advice, and
    a great analogy
    I bet the
    Indian readers
    are going
    wild

  6. gunslingergregi permalink
    November 13, 2009 4:20 pm

    ”””””””””A girl/guy with good fundamentals, on the other hand, is all the more opportunity for a good LTR. Good entrepreneurs, designers, investors, etc., all look at the potential winners of tomorrow. That’s how you get a serious ROI (return on investment). You build/create something that hasn’t been built/created, and you reap the rewards handsomely. Nobody got rich by buying today’s winners, say a stock at $148, and selling it the next quarter.””””””””””””””””

    Yea but do a couple little things and guarrentee the win. So really almost anyone can be worked with to produce a great return on investment if that is the expectation and you can save loot. Proving the theory right now and also proving life is not enough of a challenge to play.

  7. Il Capo permalink
    November 13, 2009 6:03 pm

    This analogy provides a proper cue for an interesting story.
    A friend of mine, a highly successful “finance guy” was considering getting married at age 24 (recently out of college). His older brother, also a successful finance guy and single, provided him the following advice:

    “Bro, a marriage is like a merger. You don’t want to merge when your stock is undervalued and the other company’s stock is overvalued. Your value will do nothing but increase since you only recently got your job and will start putting your education to work. You will also gain valuable life experiences and become more mature and confident. Her value, on the other hand, is at its peak now. Her value will only decrease with time as she ages.

    Why would you want to merge now?

    This is pretty true in general. – aoefe

  8. gunslingergregi permalink
    November 13, 2009 6:54 pm

    Because the future woman capo is just gonna step into the win and not have earned anything. Your gonna do all that work and get to a point that you are doing really well. Then you get a woman at that point and duh of course most woman are gonna “stick” with you at that point and be willing to “sacrifice” and stay with your finished product. Plus gonna be hard to find situations where she can prove loyalty if everything is easy. Where would you be able to introduce stress points?

    Not saying marriage but maybe if the woman is working with you through some shit before it gets to the point where you envision it will where everything is taken care of and its all blaze bla.

  9. gunslingergregi permalink
    November 13, 2009 6:58 pm

    Things like sleeping in a car for three days because you can’t get an apartment at the time are not gonna happen if your already on top to be able to see how she and you handle a stressfull situation together.

  10. November 13, 2009 7:07 pm

    Things like sleeping in a car for three days because you can’t get an apartment at the time are not gonna happen if your already on top to be able to see how she and you handle a stressfull situation together.

    True. If you don’t go through the bad times together, you won’t know if she’s just with you for your wealth and status, or if she really loves you for who you are.

    She also won’t have helped you or supported you during your climb up, so she is not much to you except as a “trophy” after you’ve already gotten the “prize” of money.

    Also, men and women who only look at the opposite sex as objects and see ways that they can profit, stay away from them. They are going to be gone as soon as the going gets tough.

    True loyalty is shown during hardship, not the easy times.

  11. gunslingergregi permalink
    November 13, 2009 7:42 pm

    Yea bout to switch roles with the wife now. So we will see if she passes yet another test. But yea gonna be a little bit of a struggle and all that good stuff. She will be the one making money. I will get to see how our relationship handles that dynamic at least for a little while then I will prob go and work a year and half and save another 100 g’s and then perma chill for real.

  12. gunslingergregi permalink
    November 13, 2009 7:44 pm

    Unless she blows expectations out of water and then I won’t have to work again mua mua hahahahahaah

  13. November 13, 2009 10:29 pm

    oh my!! you could get a whole post out of it.oh my!! you could get a whole post out of it.

    Swing batta batta, Swing!

  14. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 14, 2009 2:25 pm

    Aoefe,
    I agree with all the other, very well written post. I do however, have a burning question that I was hoping you, and perhaps the other members of the “editorial team” of GG could help me with:

    Given the nature of your post, I am wondering why none of you have yet to actually tackle the implications of the Maria Shriver Report “A Woman’s Nation”, where it clearly notes that Women, at least in the USA, are more employed, and gainfully so, than are Men. Of course, this links to what some have called the “Mancession”, where the hardest hit by the current Recession have been Men (some 70-80% of ALL job losses in the USA presently, are Male). Clearly, this has to have impacts on the dating and mating scene, yes? Yet, I have yet to hear ANY meaningful discussion or discourse, on this topic from the Female side of the blogosphere aisle. In fact, what little exists on this topic, either mocks the issue outright, as is the case over at Feministing, or, attempts to suggest that it is really a smokescreen for papering over yet more needs that Women have in our economy, of course ignoring the above stated and widely reported facts.

    So – I am wondering what you and the rest of the GG team’s thoughts are on this issue. With so many Men out of work, and mnay more to come, how will you and the GG team grapple with this? What do you propose to advise your female readers? Do you even consider it an issue of cause for concern, if not, why?

    Comments?

    The Obsidian

    I can’t comment I don’t live in the US and in my province we are not experiencing huge unemployment for men or women. – aoefe

  15. November 14, 2009 6:30 pm

    Obsidian..I wonder how much of the lesser impact that this recession has had on women (so far) is actually due to a higher % of women being employed by governments (teachers, for example)…and government jobs have traditionally been more secure.

    Just a hypothesis..haven’t looked for any numbers on this yet. But maybe this isn’t really a male vs female distinction, but rather the disparate impact of the recession on the private sector vs on a relatively-privileged public sector.

  16. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 14, 2009 7:06 pm

    Dave, this is very simple: there are now more Women working than Men. How will this reality effect the sexual marketplace? And more importantly, WHY aren’t female bloggers, like the ones I mentioned, even talking about it?

    Comments?

    The Obsidian

  17. November 14, 2009 9:23 pm

    Obsidian: I’m sure we’ll talk about it, in a way. Patience, Iago, patience. Women don’t talk about these things the same way men do.

    EDIT: Actually, I personally leave ‘THE IMPLICATIONS OF X CHANGE [WARNING: EMOTIVE HYPERBOLE AHOY!]‘ speak to men. As it usually should be. But there’re angles this could be talked about on a website called Girl Game.

  18. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 14, 2009 11:09 pm

    Hi Bhetti,
    “In a way”? Yea, I bet, LOL. See, I have some theories on this…but I want to see if the Ladies among you are brutally honest enough to call a spade a spade – that, in the main, a guy with no cash – and just as bad, no Game (natural or otherwise) – is simply a No-Go for the Ladies. Hence, the Male survivers of the Mancession, both here and in the UK, are in prime position to write their own ticket to you know what. Harems WILL happen. Because, like everything else in life, they can. Of course, no Woman will want to openly admit to signing up. But if history is any indication – and as this is a market based thread, the old saw about the best indicator future performance is past performance seems most appropriate – we can expect this to happen. Quite a bit, in fact. Because no Woman wants a broke Man for long. And we’re not even talking about a guy earning more. Just working to begin with.

    So, yes, I await with baited breath as to what the braintrust at Girl Game will come up with! I can’t wait…

    The Obsidian

  19. November 15, 2009 2:35 am

    No game is worse than no cash, as you well know. Women tend to want both. To compound the problem, a man has a knock to his mental state when cashless: he loses confidence.

    The male supply just got lower and the demand is worse than ever. A good stock is harder to find; the asking price a man may demand hikes up.

    Are many women willing to pay it, if they can even afford it? Those who are willing to do so win him, but for how long, what share of him and will they recover their losses — will it be worth it? Is it better to wait and see if the mancession resolves and prices go back down again?

  20. November 15, 2009 3:11 am

    No game is worse than no cash, as you well know. Women tend to want both. To compound the problem, a man has a knock to his mental state when cashless: he loses confidence.

    The male supply just got lower and the demand is worse than ever. A good stock is harder to find; the asking price a man may demand hikes up.

    Could this be a reason why my experiment is working better than I ever thought it would at this stage? I have lots of cash and presumably I have absorbed some game by osmosis if nothing else.

  21. November 15, 2009 9:21 am

    Mr. Tech: This is the problem with going into the trap of emotive hyperbole. That the reality of the dating market is that the supply of eligible men is decreasing doesn’t automatically translate into the dating scene and female behaviour. I’m not on the ground so I can’t say whether any changes actually occured.

    You’re still pick of the pack anyway, right? I think it’s a little beyond osmosis of Game. The inner conviction that you don’t need a woman and are happy without one is very powerful in terms of desireability, Mr. Tech. As in, if the convinction holds true, it results in the behaviour that you have options.

    Keep us updated.

  22. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    November 15, 2009 10:44 am

    Great analogy :-) Hope you have a great time “down south” aoefe.

    Guys look at relationships as “investments” and “cutting losses” all the time, from my experience. Girls should also look at the investment model of relationships similarly.

    There’s always an opportunity cost: stability with one man over trying to get the commitment of a more xyz one, declining value with age and finding the breakpoint, etc. And then the “illogic” of love to break all the rules :-)

    Obsidian

    Because no Woman wants a broke Man for long. And we’re not even talking about a guy earning more. Just working to begin with.

    I went through this for several months (prefer not to talk about exactly when in history). It ended up serious marriage-path during that period any way. But:

    1) He was successful before it happened. So he had enough cash/capital to not be financially devastated. Edit: “the best indicator future performance is past performance ” like you said :-)
    2) He did amazing and cool non-paid “work” in the meantime. He was looking to get working again but he wasn’t just sitting around doing nothing… he indulged in other interests and potential new career opportunities
    3) aoefe

    a man has a knock to his mental state when cashless: he loses confidence.

    His moments of being a lazy bum (probably minor depression from being jobless?) was a turn-off. Majorly. Why would someone tell me they were being lazy and not doing anything, and generally being irresponsible? He didn’t act that way for long though… it too, passed. Edit: When he started talking about his big and *concrete* ambitions I LUVED it… he was soooo smart and such a talker, if he didn’t try to do great things with that it would be disappointing. Everyone should try to reach their max. potential, no?

    Pls. note I didn’t talk about what actually attracted me to him in the first place and over the long-term, which had very little to do with his career (although his go-getter “Alpha” attitude was related). Career was just about practicality… like the point about financial compatibility in the post. Looking hot b/c you got Game isn’t going to put food on the table…for a family (I don’t make that much alone) lol

  23. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 15, 2009 11:29 am

    With all due respect, and Bhetti is indeed right, the Ladies are dealing with this “in their own way”, which really means, skirting the hardcore issues. The point is simply that as the economy continues to shrink, so will the eligible Males. Period. Now – how will Women respond? THAT, is the question.

    I don’t there will be any one way, but what I will say, is that History has shown us that a Woman is more willing to get a timeshare on a successful Male, than a full one on a Bum. Defacto Harems WILL happen, and not among the Women one might think. Quite a few of LSB-Aoefe-Bhetti types, can and will, signup. Simple Suppy and Demand. I mean, if we’re keepin’ it real here.

    Now, powerful Game can and does offest many things; a Vince Vaughn with tight Game beats a Brad Pitt without – but all things being equal, yea, a guy’s gotta have some income in order to really compete. Of course, because Game itself is such a highly value reasource and skill, a guy can play the system to maximum benefit because lots of clueless, yet monied mopes, exist out there.

    So, again, I await with baited breath what the braintrust at Girl Game deals with this state of affairs, which looks to be longterm at the least, and permanent at worst. Now that Women have maximum choice and freedom from consequences to boot, I say that we will see a return to a more matrilineal time, accross the board – which means, that there will be a small pool of guys routinely getting laid, and a whole lotta guys who will NOT…

    …by the Ladies’ Choice.

    Y’all Holla back

    The Obsidian

  24. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    November 15, 2009 12:10 pm

    Obisian – You bring up a good point in where I don’t think any of the girls on this blog is unhappy with how her love life is going. The voices of the girls who are unhappy with the modern market are not here much.

    The girls I know who are unhappy aren’t willing to adjust to the changed market. Like what you’ve brought up, things are different an dare changing.

    Like I talked about in my “Cultivating Inner Peace and Happiness” post, if you are at peace inside you can handle ANYTHING. Getting cancer, losing a limb, being alone for your whole life… you just have be flexible and realize that life requires adjusting your perceptions and expectations. And you have to make a choice on what you’re willing to take.

    So if only 100 men out of 200 million in the US are up for grabs, each of us will have to see if we get offered to be in the harem. And if we do, if we want it or prefer to drop out of the race (MGTOW [Men Going Their Own Way] movement style).

  25. November 15, 2009 12:12 pm

    Obsidian: You saying we’re skirting the issues is misrepresentation. We’re not high testosterone manic street preachers prophesying doom (not that I’m saying you are): it doesn’t mean we will not allude to the same thing.

    I do have at least one post related to this and all the problems but you’re really putting me off from posting it, O. What can I say, feeling rebellious. It is too long, anyway. Saying with ‘all due respect’ means you are basically giving no respect because none seems due. I have no problem with limited type harem situations but the others do and will stay strict about that. I hope you understand why it’s not respectful to assert that they will when they will not. Some men are raised to not accept harem situations either and do not find that is the kind of relationship they want — or that the kind of woman who’ll accept, even if it means being alone otherwise, is one they want — is the kind of woman they want to be with.

    Basically, in a Western society, this means more women are going to be alone. Your assertion that harem-type situations may be more common is interesting. I’ve been personally talking about this more on the Spearhead and Hope’s blog* and may cover it on my corrupt blog once there’s time. Overrepresentation of women in the workforce is unfair to them*.

    The underlying principles of GirlGame are relevant no matter what the state of the market. All a woman can do is step the Game up and lower her standards if she’s desperate. We will help all that we can with the former — that’s the purpose of this website which is giving solutions to women rather than inaccessible political dialogue which we can’t even cover properly given our word limit, intended end audience and editorial policy — but the latter is a woman’s personal choice; addressing the harem choice as a ‘solution’ that may work for some women may be in the works.

    *

    The main miserable people are women: they’re not adhering to their normal gender role and feel the need to Do It All.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4333501.stm

    http://hope.gameurb.com/thoughts-on-mens-rights-activism-and-female-cooperation/#comment-184

  26. Abject Man permalink
    November 15, 2009 12:59 pm

    I understand you ladies have made up your minds: that you’re sticking with hypergamy. Good to know. That should make it even smoother for MGTOW.

    @LSB: deciding future performance by past performance is actually betting on the $150 stock. Going for the stock that has NOT performed well yet and investing in it and toughing it out all along the way with a view to win in the long run is the strategy implied in buying low and selling high. Just to correct the logic.

  27. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 15, 2009 1:23 pm

    Hi Bhetti,
    Replies below:

    B: Obsidian: You saying we’re skirting the issues is misrepresentation. We’re not high testosterone manic street preachers prophesying doom (not that I’m saying you are): it doesn’t mean we will not allude to the same thing.

    O: My my Bhetti, such passion! I don’t think I’m “misrepresnting” things at all-in fact, I was quite clear in what I said: there is NO discussion of these issues, not just here, but accross the Femosphere, except only to mock Men, kinda sorta what you’re doing above. Now, I take a look at that and say, “Hmm…very interesting. Now, why IS that?”.

    Hmm, Bhetti? You tell me. Why is it that there is virtually no discussion about the vastly changed economic landscape out there on dating and mating scene, basically, that there are fewer eligible Males to go round. Like I said, and you allude to above, the Manosphere has quite a bit to say about it, both on the MRA and Game sides. NOTHING on the Femside.

    Except in mocking terms (Feministing). Why is that, Bhetti?

    B: I do have at least one post related to this and all the problems but you’re really putting me off from posting it, O. What can I say, feeling rebellious. It is too long, anyway. Saying with ‘all due respect’ means you are basically giving no respect because none seems due. I have no problem with limited type harem situations but the others do and will stay strict about that. I hope you understand why it’s not respectful to assert that they will when they will not. Some men are raised to not accept harem situations either and do not find that is the kind of relationship they want — or that the kind of woman who’ll accept, even if it means being alone otherwise, is one they want — is the kind of woman they want to be with.

    O: Uh, please check what I said above. I didn’t say that “the harem option” will be the ONLY way to go, what I’m saying is that, for Women of your caliber, it won’t be such a bad option once it dawns on said Women that the pickings are slim. Of course, they can go it alone, date/mate down or out and out slum it. In either event, the point is, that the environmental conditions have changed, andno amount of Girl Game is gonna change that, because guys with options can and will exercise them. Period. This is the reality I’ve yet to see the Femosphere address, head on.

    Which reminds me-who are these doom and gloomers on the Manosphere side? Names, Bhetti. Give me names.

    B: Basically, in a Western society, this means more women are going to be alone.
    O: Yup. That certainly is one very likely outcome.

    B: Your assertion that harem-type situations may be more common is interesting.

    O: No, it is happening as we speak-both Roissy and Ferdi have talked about this, wrt former US Senator and POTUS hopeful John Edwards, and he’s only the tip of the iceberg-the Rev. Jesse Jackson had him beat by a few years. It can, and will, happen. History says so.

    B: I’ve been personally talking about this more on the Spearhead and Hope’s blog* and may cover it on my corrupt blog once there’s time. Overrepresentation of women in the workforce is unfair to them*.

    O: Yup-but the genie’s outta the bottle now, and which Woman wants to go back? So, we’ll simply have to manage the situation as best we can. As I’ve always said, it’s a Buyer’s Market out there (meaning, a boon for the Right Guys)… ;)

    B: The underlying principles of GirlGame are relevant no matter what the state of the market.

    O: Uh, not really. GG is at its best when the playing field is “flat”, ie, most guys have a chance to “win”. When its incredibly lopsided like the way its fast becoming now, even a smokin’ hot Honey w/ultra tight GG has to get a timeshare on Mr. Right. Simple Econ 101, Madam.

    B: All a woman can do is step the Game up and lower her standards if she’s desperate.

    O: The latter is a lot more likely to happen, especially as Women begin to age out. Trust me on this, I’ve got loads of firsthand observational experience, coming from the Canary side of American life.

    B: We will help all that we can with the former — that’s the purpose of this website which is giving solutions to women rather than inaccessible political dialogue which we can’t even cover properly given our word limit, intended end audience and editorial policy — but the latter is a woman’s personal choice; addressing the harem choice as a ’solution’ that may work for some women may be in the works.

    O: ? It doesn’t take a Magnum Opus to see what’s going on and to discuss it in brutally honest fashion, Bhetti. What it DOES take is the kind of vision and thought that isn’t common among Women-which explains why we’re even having this conversation, right now.

    As is so often said: don’t hate the Playas-hate the GAME…

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

  28. November 15, 2009 1:49 pm

    Obsidian:

    Really? I mean, REALLY?! First of all–and this may strike you as strange–this is not your blog. In fact, don’t you have a blog for the very purpose of bringing up whatever topics you feel are of great import? There’s a reason that you are not a regular poster, nor a guest poster, at GirlGame.

    Secondly, are you kidding me? The reason we’re not discussing it is because we don’t have “vision and thought”? That’s just idiotic. Whether we have vision or thought is irrelevant–the reason we’re not discussing it is because (as Bhetti said) we’ve got word limits, we’ve got a particular direction in mind for our blog (and this is going to kill you, but the direction has nothing to do with “the obsidian”), and the Shriver report is like 450 pages long (while you have time to read 450-page reports and then write 20,000-word essays about them, most people are not so, er, blessed). There are, in fact, MANY topics we do not cover on this blog (both relating to male-female sexual dynamics, and not)–and MANY we never will. This is simply a fact of life, and you will just have to get over it on your own time.

    P.S. Really? You group us with Feministing? Shall we group you with gay male celebrity bloggers? Perez Hilton has so not covered the Shriver report, and Maria Shriver is married to a celebrity…plz get on that, KTHXBAI.

  29. November 15, 2009 2:00 pm

    Abject Man —

    I understand you ladies have made up your minds: that you’re sticking with hypergamy. Good to know. That should make it even smoother for MGTOW.

    Can you force yourself to be more attracted to an old, ugly woman than a young, gorgeous one? I wasn’t aware anyone had perfected the art of truly transcending their innate biological nature.

  30. November 15, 2009 2:00 pm

    Great Posting!

    I’ll be sure to apply it in my investment techniques

  31. November 15, 2009 2:51 pm

    That the reality of the dating market is that the supply of eligible men is decreasing doesn’t automatically translate into the dating scene and female behaviour. I’m not on the ground so I can’t say whether any changes actually occured.

    Right. The mancession is a very recent event. I seriously doubt it has been going on long enough for any changes into the dating scene yet. Obsidian is also making the potentially mistaken assumption that the mancession is permanent. The US government can’t continue with trillion dollar deficits for much longer. Once that ends that means female unemployment.

    At a personal level, I live in the greater DC area which means that we haven’t seen the mancession locally to the same level as everyplace else. There shouldn’t be an effect in the local dating scene to benefit me.

    You’re still pick of the pack anyway, right?

    You tell me. I honestly don’t see why I’m so successful especially since high school and college in terms of dealing with women were the effective equivalent of banging my head against the wall. Even now, I’m not sure what my desirability among women really is.

    I think it’s a little beyond osmosis of Game. The inner conviction that you don’t need a woman and are happy without one is very powerful in terms of desireability, Mr. Tech. As in, if the convinction holds true, it results in the behaviour that you have options.

    That is true.

  32. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 15, 2009 2:59 pm

    Ahh, I see LilGrl has decided to pullup a chair…just in time!

    LG: Really? I mean, REALLY?! First of all–and this may strike you as strange–this is not your blog. In fact, don’t you have a blog for the very purpose of bringing up whatever topics you feel are of great import? There’s a reason that you are not a regular poster, nor a guest poster, at GirlGame.

    O: Nor have I ever wished to be, Madam. But nice try at dodging. More cardio is needed. ;)

    LG: Secondly, are you kidding me? The reason we’re not discussing it is because we don’t have “vision and thought”? That’s just idiotic.

    O: OK, then – why is it that the Manosphere, including guys like Roissy and Ferdi, have discussed this, and such obstensibly smart ladies, FEMOSPHERE WIDE, have NOT? Hmm? Why is that, LilGrl? Please explain.

    LG: Whether we have vision or thought is irrelevant–the reason we’re not discussing it is because (as Bhetti said) we’ve got word limits, we’ve got a particular direction in mind for our blog (and this is going to kill you, but the direction has nothing to do with “the obsidian”), and the Shriver report is like 450 pages long (while you have time to read 450-page reports and then write 20,000-word essays about them, most people are not so, er, blessed). There are, in fact, MANY topics we do not cover on this blog (both relating to male-female sexual dynamics, and not)–and MANY we never will. This is simply a fact of life, and you will just have to get over it on your own time.

    O: LOL. I beg to differ, vision and thought are quite relevant, LilGrl…and please do not get this twisted – none of this effects ME personally. I have been in more relationships, and for a longer period of time, than you’ve been out in the workforce and supporting yourself. Many of the things I write about, address and speak on has little to do with me personally. It’s just that, unlike some, I’m a very curious and perceptive guy who likes to write about the things he sees around him and that is about to come down the pike. I am simply stating a fact – that it is most odd that the Manosphere, from the MRA types to the Game types, have discussed the implications of the Mancession and the Shriver Report and it’s likely impact on the dating scene, and the Femosphere, of which I consider you and your cohorts a part of, to date, have NOT. A curious gent like me takes a look at the two, and goes, “Hmm…wassup wit dat”? And then I start going to those folks and start asking hard questions. So glad that I’m finding so many direct answers in kind. ;)

    But yes, let’s talk about that “particular direction for our blog” – as Abject Man says above, and as you so readily agree, the direction here seems quite clear – the way you and most other Women intend to deal with the changed social landscape, is crank up “Girl Game” in the hopes that you can snatch up one of the relatively few Eligible Males left. As I’ve said, from Day One, if you’ll kindly recall. And, if you will kindly recall, I said then, and I repeat now, that such a strategy is inherently rigged, because most Women can and will LOOSE. YOU, may not. BHETTI, may not. SOFIA, may not. AOEFE, may not. But, enmasse, Women trying to do what a small (and as yet, really unproven) group of Ladies are doing, simply cannot work – the numbers, given the changed landscape, simply doesn’t workout.

    So…you were saying? ;)

    LG: P.S. Really? You group us with Feministing? Shall we group you with gay male celebrity bloggers? Perez Hilton has so not covered the Shriver report, and Maria Shriver is married to a celebrity…plz get on that, KTHXBAI.

    O: Oh LilGrl, you disappoint me. I thought you were much smarter than that. Surely, you can do better!

    First off, I’m not Gay, not am I particularly interested in celebs, so there is nothing in common with me and Mr. Perez. Second, I would argue that you, and the rest of the Ladies here at GG Central have far and away more in common with the Ladies of Feministing, Feministe and Jezebel, than I do with Mr. Perez. Try me.

    And yes, Ms. Governator has married well. The question is, will the millions of Women out there, now making up the lion’s share of the American workforce, while more and more Men are being liquidated out of same, come anywhere close? To ask the question, is to answer it.

    That is, unless you’re a part of the Femosphere… ;)

    By all means – Holla back

    The Obsidian

  33. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 15, 2009 3:22 pm

    PMAFT,
    It is not my particular theory that the economy in in some, perhaps many, ways is going to be irrevocably altered – this is the view of virtually every major economical voice out there. All I’m doing is examining the ways in which the dating scene will adapt to this reality.

    The Obsidian

  34. November 15, 2009 3:38 pm

    Abject Man: http://girlgame.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/do-settle/
    As a whole, we’re looking for something different than netting the male that is most sexually attractive. We’re looking to find someone then once we make that choice, to make it last, make it healthy and make it matter.

    There’s still no use pretending that a man without a job or even money doesn’t have an effect on his own mental state as well as his attractiveness to women.

    Discussing what women in general find attractive is slightly different from how we personally feel about it. And you didn’t ask.

    O: I’m flattered you think I’m of such high caliber that the only man to match me would be in such demand. Thank you.

    You’ve been making ‘women are…’ statements repeatedly, while I said not even you are a manic street preacher with high testosterone that I mentioned. That that comment becomes portrayed as mocking men as a gender…? Well, I hope I didn’t fall into that. But let me make myself clear.

    I like reading about theorising about future trends; it’s pretty much anywhere in the manosphere and the list of names would be a mile. I also view it as a very male thing. You view it as a positive, while I can be ambivalent (coming from a female perspective) in a ‘it’s too absolutist for me, and even more too absolutist for me to write about’ kind of way. I believe I could sound like a high testosterone manic street preacher if I tried. I’m happy with the male coverage here and don’t deny women aren’t covering it.

    So let me ask what’s the ultimate point of this painfully and cruelly pointing out ‘women don’t have awareness, brutal honesty or vision — not even if you tried, Bhetti’, then? I’m tired of being pointlessly defensive about this to you. I have nothing to prove. I don’t think you’re trying to personally attack me, my persona or say women are valueless. (I’m sure you at least think women are cute little lost kittens or something). There is a point to the torture, isn’t there? You’re not arguing all this just for fun?

  35. November 15, 2009 4:00 pm

    Even now, I’m not sure what my desirability among women really is.

    Can’t really propose more ideas beyond what has been discussed. Basically limited by not knowing what you’re like in real life.

  36. Abject Man permalink
    November 15, 2009 4:19 pm

    @Bhetti

    You and I seem to have a communication problem: you seem to get the impression from me that I have in mind something like lining up women and hollering to the guys to have a go at them indiscriminately.

    This is a bit disappointing coming from a smartie-pants like you.

    My emphasis is not on whether people should have qualities for choosing spouses or not. It is on how human desire operates in different social contexts.

    For that, refer to my reply to LG below.

    @LG

    These days we see many people refer to the HBD paradigm to justify their individualistic choices. Your rhetorical statement “I wasn’t aware anyone had perfected the art of truly transcending their innate biological nature” is along these lines: that we, as individuals, are unable to help our nature.

    Of course, we do NOT need to transcend our innate nature to deal with this. For example, I, as a male, am wired to kill, rape, steal, plunder, backstab, etc. Fortunately, we have LAWS regulating such tendencies which, I confess, operate at a lower degree of finesse than an “art of truly transcending [our] innate … nature” but gets the job done of stopping outright bloodshed in the streets.

    (Side note: When it comes to curbing men’s innate tendencies, girls seem to be very, very conservative and do not refrain from resorting to the Iron Fist of the State, requiring umpteen laws be passed. When it comes to curbing THEIR tendencies by laws, custom, and norms, they give us the “hey, I’m wired to be like this” excuse, and cry “oppression” when this is pointed out.)

    Let’s look at this with an analogy.

    Most of our primal instincts are mechanisms regulated by parts of our brain that have evolved way earlier than, say, our frontal lobe. The evolutionary process goes way earlier than the estimated 60,000 years around which homo sapiens is said to have emerged in sub-Saharan Africa. Millions of years is a better time frame.

    This means, for millions of years, our primate ancestors lived in small groups entirely at the mercy of nature, which is characterized, before anything else, SCARCITY. The implication of that is, those with a higher urge to, say, consume sugar (it being a primary source of energy for our organism) had a better shot at survival. As spotting sources of (and consuming) sugar requires way more arduous an activity in nature, our strong hunger (i.e. the psychological urge) for it is an inevitable BY-PRODUCT of that scarcity.

    Now, fast forward the film to present day, and imagine a woman who managed to become 350 lbs. due to a large intake of glucose and fat (way more than she needed) for a long time. She can do that because her primal urge to consume these is no longer limited/curbed by scarcity, nor by any mental discipline/will power. She has become a PERFECTIONIST: a perfectionist of sugar/fat consumption.

    Sexual urges or hypergamous tendencies are not inherently much different from this.

    We live in societies where scarcity in most things (including finding sexual partners) has almost disappeared, and we have hardly any harsh constraints on our urges.

    Unless curbed by either Nature, or by very strict/conservative norms/laws (which were invented by the wise elders of previous societies to replace Nature to deal with this very fundamental problem of “setting boundaries”), our blind urges will run amok, and poison our thinking.

    Do you think it is *enlightened* behavior to just insist that unless you get the PERFECT guy, life is not worth living in such a social context?

    Here’s another analogy. Imagine you had a baby, and he

    * required specially filtered air to breath since anything less than a perfect mixture caused allergies in him;

    * could not sleep unless a perfect anechoic chamber was created for him — the slightest patter disturbed his sleep;

    * could not eat any food other than the purest mixture of ingredients; dust, the most benign bacteria, the food being too hot or too cold, any of these turned up his digestive system;

    * had to be clothed with the finest fabrics since his skin was too sensitive to most;

    etc. He’s a perfectionist, now, isn’t he? This would be the baby you’d like to have?

    There’s an unspoken assumption in modern day bourgeois public discourse when it comes to social issues: that without our “imagination” the world have been a poor place to live in. As if we were beamed here from an alternative universe, and the world, alas, is a bitch that just refuses to provide us what we’re able to fantasize.

    For the healthy mind, giving up living according to the dictates of a fantasy-addled brain IS the true liberation. It is insisting on perfectionism that is the real sacrifice: sacrifice of human resources, of economic resources, of a shot at happiness, etc.

    Perfectionism is the biggest imperfection of our still-mostly-chaotic brains.

    (Side note: Two economic laws should give you a hint on why, from Nature’s angle, perfectionism is a waste of resources: the law of diminishing returns, and the law of marginal utility.)

    This write-up by Aoefe does contain good advice, but I’m afraid quite a few will misinterpret it. The message (if I’m not mistaken) isn’t that you should go for the winning stock — something any dog can say when knowing the winning stock itself is the billion-dollar question for all investors, and going for today’s winners bring you hardly anything. Only people with the entrepreneurial mind set, i.e. those who can see a handful of good fundamentals in a potential investment which the majority may shun like the plague, will invest in it, tough it out to grow it into a successful business, and will in the end be handsomely rewarded.

    The risk of totally failing is part of the package. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need the whole process of investment.

    Making up long lists of (allegedly) desirable qualities, on the other hand, is saying, loud and clear, that you do NOT want to take any risks. That you’d just like to grab the cream bottle from the fridge and spray it into your mouth. Doesn’t lead to bliss.

  37. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 15, 2009 4:31 pm

    Hi Bhetti,
    B: I’m flattered you think I’m of such high caliber that the only man to match me would be in such demand. Thank you.

    O: You’re most welcome.

    You’ve been making ‘women are…’ statements repeatedly, while I said not even you are a manic street preacher with high testosterone that I mentioned. That that comment becomes portrayed as mocking men as a gender…? Well, I hope I didn’t fall into that. But let me make myself clear.

    O: Please.:)

    B: I like reading about theorising about future trends; it’s pretty much anywhere in the manosphere and the list of names would be a mile. I also view it as a very male thing. You view it as a positive, while I can be ambivalent (coming from a female perspective) in a ‘it’s too absolutist for me, and even more too absolutist for me to write about’ kind of way. I believe I could sound like a high testosterone manic street preacher if I tried. I’m happy with the male coverage here and don’t deny women aren’t covering it.

    O: So happy that we agree! Now, if only we could get that fiest LilGrl in line… ;)

    B: So let me ask what’s the ultimate point of this painfully and cruelly pointing out ‘women don’t have awareness, brutal honesty or vision — not even if you tried, Bhetti’, then?

    O: I’ve already made myself quite clear over the course of the last few posts. That you now ask for even more clarity only strengthens previous points made by me, says it all. Especially given the state title of this post by Aoefe. Hmm.

    B: I’m tired of being pointlessly defensive about this to you. I have nothing to prove. I don’t think you’re trying to personally attack me, my persona or say women are valueless. (I’m sure you at least think women are cute little lost kittens or something).

    O: Indeed, I have no interest or incentive in attacking you, and you have no need to be so defensive. I think we’ve both agreed as to why we see, or rather, DON’T see, what we DON’T see, in the Femosphere, including this venue. And no, I don’t think Women are “valueless”. Just prone to a kind of myopia that doesn’t serve them well. See: Devlin for more on this.

    B: There is a point to the torture, isn’t there?

    O: Sometimes; sometimes, merely inflicting pain for its own sake IS the goal. Like so many other things in life, very often, people do what they do, simply because, THEY CAN.

    B: You’re not arguing all this just for fun?

    O: Does it look like I’m having fun? ;)

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

  38. November 15, 2009 4:39 pm

    Ladies and gentlemen, I have work to do this cold winter night. Should you catch me weakening and casting my attention elsewhere, prithee do me the courtesy of a reminder of my duties.

    If not done with such odious tasks before the midnight hour strikes, I look forward to your discourses upon the morrow.

    Until then, adieu.

  39. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    November 15, 2009 5:25 pm

    @Bhetti **You should not be reading this until work is done – back to it now!** :-) (I also need to get away more too, the ‘returns’ on what I’m getting out blogs lately is interfering with real life ‘returns’ and sometimes not worth it)

    @Abject Man

    From coal to diamonds: picking out guys who aren’t successful yet but will be?

    Some good feedback I’ve heard is to keep things simple and measurable. Accordingly, I’m reading your comment as saying you would marry a hooker with a heart of gold, or a recovering heroin addict who is genuinely sweet? All power to you to do so. Don’t think much of the rest of the world trusts their own instincts quite as much in that way.

  40. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    November 15, 2009 5:35 pm

    @PMAFT

    Back in college, there was this mild-mannered accounting major who really liked to watch that wrestling smackdown show I knew. (We used to tease him about smackdown, “Uh oh better not messup those payables or it’s gonna be a smackdown!”)

    This guy was cute to look at with a subdued sense of humor. And he was *not* the typical college h*rndog boy. He wasn’t gay, but he just didn’t seem affected by any of my s*xier friends’s charms. He wouldn’t swing his head when a bunch of blonde-haired big-b**bed girls from the top sorority went by.

    One of my playette friends (super popular with the boys) would always try to flirt with him, I think trying to break his serious shell. Even I with my undeveloped hypnotic gaze would catch myself smiling at him across the quad, and teasing out of him about what type of girl he wants.

    I wonder if you come across the way this college friend of mine did. For what it’s worth, there were a lot of guys on the science and engineering sides of the house this way too. It was sort of like, “Hello look at me I’m a girl why aren’t you trying to hit on me?” lol This made those guys somehow tempting… how to break their shells?

    (I hope I don’t regret writing this; I’m just writing about very real college behavior by many girls and can probably be attacked for all of womandom for being so open.lol)

  41. November 15, 2009 8:01 pm

    @Bhetti

    If you haven’t finished your work, don’t read this until you’re done.

    Can’t really propose more ideas beyond what has been discussed. Basically limited by not knowing what you’re like in real life.

    Fair enough and I don’t have any women IRL who I could trust to give me a honest analysis about this. However you did say “pick of the pack”, and you must have had a reason for saying that.

  42. СОФИЯ/sofia permalink
    November 15, 2009 8:16 pm

    Pro-Male,

    Like LSB outlined, I am dating someone who has been in your situation. He’s an attractive, intelligent, generally adjusted guy who did present himself as a challenge to me and it drove me crazy. Usually, I have to be guarded when I go out with guys, because I get at least some sexual advances by the second date (like most women), and it puzzled me to no end that he didn’t try to sleep with me even dressed up in impossible patent black leather heels, and a tasteful but sexy dress. And again, like most women, I enjoy being chased sexually because it gives me a position of power. Um, obviously, it’s happened since, but his aloofness does still work in his favour even as someone who’s a super-intellectual nerd.

  43. November 15, 2009 8:57 pm

    It is not my particular theory that the economy in in some, perhaps many, ways is going to be irrevocably altered – this is the view of virtually every major economical voice out there. All I’m doing is examining the ways in which the dating scene will adapt to this reality.

    Obsidian, it was the view of every major economic voice a few years ago that home prices were climbing to a permanently high plateau. I disagreed, and it turned out they were right and I was wrong.

    Getting to the real point, saying that economy will be fundamentally changed doesn’t tell you what exactly the LONG TERM change will be. We have a mancession now, but there is no guarantee that this is sustainable. A great deal of female employment is dependent on the government running multi-trillion dollar deficits which are not sustainable. Either our creditors will give up or enough people will be close to a revolt when they are losing their jobs while public sector employees are getting high raises (i.e. the tea parties). California is what the future looks like unless some drastic changes are made so we know this situation isn’t sustainable.

    We may be heading to European levels of unemployment. However this doesn’t mean the mancession will necessarily continue. You’re asking the GG chicks to comment on something that hasn’t filtered to the dating scene yet because its too recent and in some ways at least probably isn’t permanent. Even with Euro levels of unemployment the male vs. female ratio of unemployment may not be so out of whack to really have an effect on the dating scene.

  44. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 15, 2009 10:58 pm

    PMAFT,
    Nice White Knighting move, but with all due respect speculation hasn’t stopped any of the GG team from commenting on anything else before – as a commenter on my blog rightly noted, none of them have actually achieved their stated objective – that of attracting and then “roping” Mr. Right for a longterm commitment, preferrably marriage. But that doesn’t prevent them from giving their views on the dating scene. Right?

    But really, PMAFT, all this is water under the bridge, since both Bhetti and LilGrl have basically told us why the Femosphere is incapable of speculating on the Mancession and Shriver’s Report, and it has more to do with what Devlin said about a Woman’s field of view than it does about looking through a glass, yet darkly.

    Good night! :)

    The Obsidian

  45. November 15, 2009 11:44 pm

    Nice White Knighting move

    White knighting? WTF?????? I have a long standing reputation of pissing women off including at least one time on this blog. I don’t white knight anything.

    Congratulations on missing the point. No one knows yet if the mancession is permanent or not. The answer is probably not since female unemployment will increase when the federal government reaches its breaking point and as California shows that will be soon.

    I have no interest in debating whether the GG authors have achieved their stated objective.

    Obsidian, I don’t know why you seem to keep picking fights wherever you go, but I’m not sure what your problem is with me. I have better things to do than engage in a flame war with you.

  46. November 16, 2009 3:45 am

    @LSB

    I suppose it could be something like that except that I didn’t have any women try to flirt or otherwise throw themselves at me in college.

    @Sofia

    Until I started my experiment a few weeks ago, I didn’t have any second dates or first dates so there was no opportunity for me to make any sexual advances on any woman. Now, I have women throwing themselves at me on the “first date”, so sexual advances on the second date are kind of moot.

    Bhetti has a really good understanding of whats going on in my life, especially this:

    The inner conviction that you don’t need a woman and are happy without one is very powerful in terms of desireability, Mr. Tech. As in, if the convinction holds true, it results in the behaviour that you have options.

  47. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 16, 2009 10:14 am

    PMAFT,
    I’m pretty sure you do, brother. And since you’ve been missing my point for at least the post dozen or so posts, perhaps that explains other things as well.

    Hmm…

    The Obsidian

  48. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 16, 2009 12:16 pm

    By the way, for those so inclined, I just put up a new article addressing all this at my blog, The Obsidian Files; here’s a taste:

    “Over the weekend I happened across Girl Game team member Aoefe’s post “The Stock Market & Mate Selection”. It was a most timely subject, given the current state of affairs on the economic front not just for Americans, but throughout the world.”

    For more: theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com

    The Obsidian

  49. November 16, 2009 4:42 pm

    There is no point in Obsidian’s ‘Why aren’t you women discussing why you lose?’. Give me solutions. Give me things a woman can do. Give me a word count that is widely accessible. I shall tell you what a woman can do, which is something noone to my knowledge in the ‘manosphere’ has covered, which is surprising because you’d think men are solution-oriented. Still, they think of solutions for themselves and not for women, which is fair.

    What a woman can do:
    a) step up her Game if these changes are or will be reflected in the dating scene. [goes without saying]
    b) lower her standards if these changes are or will be reflected in the dating scene. [vaguely alluding to option b in terms of harems was the closest O came to proposing any solutions. It also goes without saying.]
    c) be sensible financially and support her current partner as much as possible. [covered]
    d) support measures to cut down on the mancession such as encouraging employment of men and reducing costs that’re heavy on the state (e.g. a revamped health service). [covered obliquely by the manosphere -- although they have no faith women have plenty of reason to engage in this -- not suitable for the GG blog.]

    Mr. Tech: It is subtle things like this.

    I have better things to do than…

    Well, you know what it is. You don’t take the b/s and you’re confident in yourself, aren’t you? In terms of being pick of the pack: Clever, successful and outwardly giving off all the indicators that you’re a happy, adjusted man. Noone’s suggested otherwise and that’s how you’re treated, isn’t it? Oh, I picture you as a suit type. Is that right?

    I could ask whether you give a more humorous/fun vibe, a (stoic?) serious one or a dangerous one (my just-now-invented categorisations!). I don’t think you’d give off dangerous at all but how much of the ‘heartbreaker’ component of danger? I know you can definitely do being fun from online but I don’t know if that’s reflected in real life.

    Hope that was coherent.

    Abject Man: My moments of some lucidity — that pass for intelligence — come and go.

    Companions are important to life, practically speaking. If we’re talking on a purely personal level, I’m not the person I’d like to be who could settle well enough. Forgive the mixing of analogies to follow. Unpleasant exposures to unwise losing investments have made me hypersensitive to them: I break out in a rash over taking the same kind of risks again.

    That said, I like my life. In some moments I think how unpleasant my strong urges for being partnered up are to me — the biggest source of dissatisfaction and behaviour I’ve regretted by far — and want to eliminate them. The impossibility is unnatural. You can’t eliminate the urge without eliminating your humanity, or at least eliminating the self you know. Metaphorical suicide; a self without these urges is a self unrecognisable to me.

    I do my best to make sure I’m not controlled by them. However, there’s only so much you can do for your own behaviour. The male has his keepers, his watchmen. Yet I as a woman here must be the intelligent animal that walks into the cage of its own free will, knowing and remembering that the cage is the best option, defying an instinct that wants dangerous, unfettered freedom in favour of exaggerating the instinct that desires safety. Of course it’s the best option, of course I must do it, of course it’s difficult. Of course it requires a constant maintenance of consciousness and will that could weaken at any vulnerable moment.

    Now you’re making me ramble in odd thoughts ;)

  50. November 17, 2009 12:21 am

    You could be like Harry Markowitz, and heavily diversify. In game language: always have a pair and a spare. Beta is indeed riskier!

    Or, you could be like Warren Buffet, and only by depressed assets. In game language: find a boy or girl when they are down on their luck, and profit! Only buy simple assets that you understand.

    Or, you could be like Nassim Taleb, and bet against Black Swans, by short-selling out-of-the-money calls and buying out-of-the-money puts with the proceeds, but that one probably doesn’t apply to Game :)

    I am working on a stock option valuation model to estimate how long a woman should expect to wait to marry, based on the volatility of alpha male sexual encounters in her past.

  51. November 17, 2009 3:26 am

    Well, you know what it is. You don’t take the b/s and you’re confident in yourself, aren’t you? In terms of being pick of the pack: Clever, successful and outwardly giving off all the indicators that you’re a happy, adjusted man.

    That’s right.

    Noone’s suggested otherwise and that’s how you’re treated, isn’t it?

    There are some who have suggested otherwise, but they’re all online and have an obvious agenda, but otherwise that is correct.

    Oh, I picture you as a suit type. Is that right?

    Well, this is complicated. I don’t wear a suit on a day to day basis. The industry I work in (computer software) is the industry that invented dressing down for work. If you work at my office, and you’re wearing a suit (and not doing something like meeting a customer) people start assuming you’re interviewing for a job at a different company. One of my coworkers as a joke decided to make everyone at the office paranoid by wearing a suit almost every day for a few weeks.

    I don’t know if that answers your question or not.

    I could ask whether you give a more humorous/fun vibe, a (stoic?) serious one or a dangerous one (my just-now-invented categorisations!). I don’t think you’d give off dangerous at all but how much of the ‘heartbreaker’ component of danger? I know you can definitely do being fun from online but I don’t know if that’s reflected in real life.

    Yes, I do the fun vibe in real life. I know I’m not giving off any type of dangerous vibe whatsoever. As for the “heartbreaker” component of danger, I really don’t know. I suspect I will have to continue with everything I’m doing to find that out.

  52. gunslingergregi permalink
    November 17, 2009 3:47 am

    Tech have you ever been in a fight?

  53. theobsidianfiles permalink
    November 17, 2009 11:41 pm

    Bhetti,
    The solutions are quite clear:

    “Stepping up Girl Game” can only work for a select few of Women, by definition-and let’s be brutally honest here-NONE of the team at Girl Game have proven these methods to work; by your own definition, none of you have been able to procur a Top Notch Guy for marriage, let alone been in an actual one for any length of time. I, on the other hand, not only can give any Man the tools needed to seduce a Woman, I can also give him the tools needed to keep that seduction going over a length of time. I can do this, because I’ve done it, and I study those who’ve done it.

    Yes, a Woman can lower her standards-but again, by definition, that would be incongruant w/Girl Game, yes? And, since few guys have Game, and fewer guys will be gainfully employed, and even fewer guys will be gainfully employed AND have solid Game…the chances of a Woman happily settling, prior to say, the age of 35, ain’t strong. More likely that she’ll sign on to a de facto harem, or remain by herself in smoldering yet misplaced anger.

    But no matter how you see it, what I and just about every other voice who’s chimed in on the matter, basically saying that there isn’t a heck of a lot that CAN BE DONE. Things will play out along their present course until the market “corrects” itself-hopefully, within the next decade.

    Until then, batton down the hatches…

    The Obsidian

  54. November 18, 2009 1:27 am

    none of you have been able to procur a Top Notch Guy for marriage

    wha…?!

  55. СОФИЯ/sofia permalink
    November 18, 2009 1:52 am

    LILGRL,

    I KNOW. I pointed this out to someone in the other thread…

    Both you and Hope are engaged. Also, LSB, Bhetti, and I have gotten proposals. Aoefe was in a LTR for many years… Considering our ages. Yeah. I’d say we done pretty good for ourselves.

  56. November 18, 2009 4:05 am

    Obsidian I have been missing in action for a few days and don’t have a week to catch up with your looooong winded rants. You impressed me when I first read you at Roissy. You seemed genuine and were the ‘good guy’ playah or so it seemed. You’ve now got a swelled head ( not the good one) from men (not women). You’re a smart man I’ll give you that, but you come across as sanctimonious, a most unattractive trait – is that the new Game? Just wonderin…

  57. November 18, 2009 5:46 am

    don’t anybody tell epoxy that he’s not a “Top-Notch Guy”

  58. November 20, 2009 9:40 pm

    I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  59. November 20, 2009 10:26 pm

    Thanks redcodz – welcome. :)

  60. May 29, 2010 2:58 am

    I like the points Il Capo and gunslingergregi make about value and loyalty. Sure if youre stocks at a high you will get the “best” girl in terms of physical/social appearance. But as GSG says, you wont be able to test their metal properly unless you can introduce points of stress into the relationship to test if they bend or break.

    No point going into a merger with your stock at a high, theirs at a low, only to find out they run off with your capital and do a merger with someone else :P

Trackbacks

  1. Linkage is Good for You: Common Cold Edition « In Mala Fide
  2. A Quick Primer On The Sexual Marketplace, & Why The Femosphere CANNOT Address It Meaningfully

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers

%d bloggers like this: