Pages
▼
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
The "three billion women" argument
One of the more asinine PUA statements is that there are "3 billion women" (google that in addition to "PUA" and be surprised) on this planet and therefore plenty of chances to get laid, and oh-so-many ways to experiment and refine your "game". The sheer stupidity of that number is hard to stomach.
Okay, let's say there are 6 billion people on Earth, 3 billion men and 3 billion women, and let's ignore the slight gender imbalance. We're working with huge numbers, so a few measly hundred million don't matter. So, Joe PUA, how would you go about hitting on all those three billion women? Well, first you would probably realize that you're neither a pedophile nor a gerontophile, in other words, you neither fuck children nor the elderly. Then there is the problem that a good one billion of those women reside in India and China. Too bad, bro!
As you think some more about it, Joe PUA might realize that he would not only want to not fuck some granny, but instead mate with a healthy, attractive young female instead. Also, he doesn't want to leave the country or state he lives in. In fact, he doesn't even want to leave his city. Then it hits him that he's actually constrained by the number of available women in his city. I know, I know, there is now talk of cities turning into megalopoleis, but they're getting nowhere near billions of people.
Let's give Joe PUA some variety to work with, so we'll locate him in a trendy US city like Portland, Oregon. Wikipedia tells me that there are 600,000 people living in it. Joe PUA is white, and he'd much rather fuck a white girl. Not that he's racist. It's just his sexual preference. This narrows his pool of women down from about 300k to 225k since about three quarters of the people in Portland are white. Now the PUA-tards might think that 225,000 women are more than they could ever fuck in a lifetime and can barely sit still in their excitement. But, dear PUA-tards, don't move to Portland yet, because it's getting worse:
"The age distribution was 21.1% under the age of 18, 10.3% from 18 to 24, 34.7% from 25 to 44," and you're probably not looking for anyone beyond the age of 40 anyway. Those statistics are not fine-grained enough. I therefore had a look at the most recent US census information. It wasn't a pretty sight:
Note that these data are for the wider Oregon region. So let's just assume that the percentages, which are shown in the right column more or less reflect the situation in Portland as well.
Joe PUA has no easy access to 19 year-olds, so the age category from 20 to 29 has to suffice. That's a mere 6 per cent of all women. Suddenly, Joe PUA went from 225,000 women to just about 13,000. Bummer, eh, Joe?
Let's continue playing around with the numbers, and take into account that a certain percentage of the women might be married. Let's say it's 30 %, and then some more might be in some kind of relationship, possibly another 30 %. What's left for Joe PUA then? About 5,000 women. Yes, yes, Mystery and Tyler, if you fucked a new woman every weekend, it would still take you about 100 years to get through all of them. However, in reality, all 5,000 single women of your desired age range in your city of 600,000 don't line up in front of your house. You've got to find them somewhere. At this point, your socio-economic status starts playing a big role. Popular fiction in the US is that they've got a "classless society", but if you believe that, then you're probably actively looking into buying a patch of land on the moon, too.
Just thinking of the number of women that would be available in the best possible situation versus the number of people in that city should be quite sobering for any PUA spouting out nonsense of "three billion women". What's even more sobering is that you're not the only one competing for them. Then, since women like to "marry up" you should be of at least the same socio-economic background, but ideally a bit higher. Let's say Joe is more on the average side, which will then cut the number of available women in half again: 2,500! It's starting to get depressing, isn't it, Joe PUA?
So far, we have not even considered physical attractiveness, their interests, or their personality. Let's say you've got some standards, and don't like to bang fatties. She should at the very least be slim. Let's be very generous and say that this excludes 60 % of women. Only a very small minority of women stays in shape, so I'm being very generous here. What's the total now? It's 1,000. Then some women have interests or a world view you can't stand. Let's say it's half, and, again, I'm being very generous here. The number is now 500. Now let's finally talk about personal compatibility. This is very tricky, and you'll probably find that you only ever really "click" with about 20 % of women, and that's a really generous number. What's the final number? It's a shockingly low 100 in a city of 600,000. You could easily fit them into a bus.
Please note that you will compete with other men for those women you desire, and those more desirable women might have higher standards which you may not be able to meet. But let's assume Joe PUA drops his PUA nonsense and follows a saner approach to dating, and doesn't repel 95 % of the women he talks to within the first five seconds. He then still has the problem that he has to find all those girl, and this is the big problem. Instead he'll encounter many women he'll have absolutely nothing in common with, doesn't find attractive at all, and who might have obnoxious personalities. Sure, for a one-night stand you may be able to ignore personality defects, but for any kind of relationship toxic personalities are to be avoided.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments below!
Does this analysis not suggest that actively pursuing women is a complete waste of time? If one were to reconcile the costs and benefits of such activity, would it not be the case that the costs always exceed the benefits - if, of course, men could rationally value sex (which most of the time, they don't)?
ReplyDeleteAlso, it seems that you are consciously acknowledging hypergamy with this post even though you've denounced it in the past. If Joe was a 90th percentile man instead of a 50th percentile man, would this not yield the best achievable differential in courting results (or at least offer him more choices)?
It depends on how much you value being in a relationship. A relatively sensible approach, if you want to settle down, is to fuck a lot of women until you come across some you like. The problem is that they don't show their true self, or at least part of it, before having had sex with you, so this step is unavoidable. However, to waste less of your time, you might want to skip banging chicks you know you'll have no interest in ever getting involved with.
DeleteAlso, I think it's quite obvious that very good looking women and also very desirable men could get laid very easily. The problem, though, is that they wouldn't be attracted to all the guys or girls they could get. Joe Ninety-Percenter wouldn't even think of pursuing all those homely Jane Does.
Would-be PUAs would be better off watching Mr. Plinkett's views on men's and women's desires:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5elPs1c0I5g
And his analysis of Padme and Anakin's relationship in Attack of the Clones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz1L63TdhC8
Hey Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI guess, the "3 billion" argument is just to show you that there are enough girls out there for you to meet and you don't need to whine endlessly over Jane Doe who rejected you. So, the argument may be out of proportion but it makes a good point in showing that you can easily move on.
It's nothing to sweat about.
I'm not sure whether you're serious or just a PUA shill, but the problem is exactly that there are really not that many women around you could move on to. Any PUA claiming something along the line of "3 billion women, plenty of fish in the sea" should be uniformly laughed at, but for that to happen the typical PUA follower would have to have a shred of intelligence.
DeleteFurther, it's like PUAs arguing, "look how many numbers I get", and hyping this up as some kind of success, when the reality is that often all those number turn out to be either fake, or the women just flake on them. Yeah, plenty of fish in the sea.
DeleteAnyone who goes out with any kind of regularity knows that phone numbers mean practically nothing. Maybe 30 years ago giving your number out was a BIG deal. That's why I don't understand the appeal of those youtube PUAs that demonstrate how to get a girls phone number. In my personal experience 3 out 10 ever respond, and at best I can make 2 of them to meet me again. Usually those were solid numbers to begin with and you know which numbers are solid and which ones are flakes from the get go.
DeleteI live in London, and used to walk around for 2-3 hours in shopping malls and sometimes didn't even see girls who I was attracted to. When I was still doing cold approaches, I would approach a reasonably attractive girl out of frustration at my lack of results and it would always end up failing. I remember reading on SeductionMyth, when it was still up, that people have 'types' and these are based on facial similarity, and that out of 30 guys a girl (or a guy) might only pick one who is their type (facial feature match). I think this make sense as it is pretty rare for me to come across a girl who truly attracts me even in such a big city. I have therefore used this model as a basis for when to approach girls. Sometimes I also run into false positives, I think a girl is attractive but at closer inspection something is not right (she had some facial similarity but not a high enough percentage). I think a lot of guys may get hurt chasing false positves. I was convinced at one point I had strong feelings for a girl, but on looking back it she was just hot and had some features I was attracted to, but was definitely not 'my type'. Society simply brainwashed me into chasing any hot girl I could see, rather than using my true insticts.
ReplyDeleteI think the number of girls who are truly your type is quite rare. Then there are other factors which may work against you (circumstances, core values etc.). I believe this is why our culture has this idea of true love. In your lifetime you may only come across one such person, who you may end up marrying. How many girlfriends do guys have on average in their lifetime again? I seem to recall it was in the single digits. This is why I think the concept of picking up girls is a waste of time. I think you should rely on random chance of meeting such girl and then initiate, chances are things will fall into place. I suspect you can even cold approach if your spidey sense goes off strongly, this is simply more difficult but no less likely to produce results if you pick your type correctly. The reasons I think it is more difficult? Your brain recognizes your type via the visual field. It usually takes more than a fleeting glance, like if you were walking past a girl on the street, so I use a neutral opener to get a better look (do you have the time?). I've been off many times.
This is the method I use, as I feel I've seen enough evidence to believe this is the primary mechanism by which people choose mates.
This guy, Tristan Miller, came to the same conclusion: http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Why_I_Will_Never_Have_a_Girlfriend. But please note that he listed his article under "humor" on his site. He also made an application form for women to apply to be his girlfriend: http://en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/Apply_to_be_Psychonaut%27s_girlfriend.
ReplyDeleteTruth is often disguised as 'humor'. Just think of George Carlin's diatribes against religion or the American dream.
DeleteSo what's your point with this article Aaron ?
ReplyDeleteTo have a pesimistic view about getting laid and shouldn't even bother approaching ?
At least when you hear there are 3 bilion girls it gives you hope ... it doesn't matter if it's real or not .
Knowing the real truth doesn't even motivate me to approach anymore ... it means I rather make a lot of money in order to move from one city to another ... and that's just stupid.
I'll reply to this tomorrow. The title of the post will be "Mailbag: What’s ‘hope’ worth to you?"
DeleteI think this Drake Equation way of looking at finding a match is a bit self-defeating. If it was THAT bad humanity should've gone extinct by now and nobody would ever marry. The fact is most people will marry someone and have kids.
ReplyDeleteWhat must be remembered is these anemic numbers indicate who out there might be your dream catch. I could see there only being enough dream girls to fit into a bus out of an entire mid-sized city. However, most people don't find the person of their dreams, they find someone that is "good enough". Maybe not the perfect person but often times someone who still makes them happy. If you are coming from that angle, then your pool of women should be vastly wider.
Of course, if you lower your standards, you widen your pool of potential mates. However, it's not as if you're doing yourself many favours this way. I'd say it's better to stay single than to shack up with a woman you find unattractive, in whatever way.
DeleteI think your analysis is fantastic at socio dynamics. But it isn't actually that hard to meet women even though there is just a 100 of them in Portland like in your article. I have to concede I haven't been to Portland and doesn't want to comment on the particular city but in any city and after considering the fact that some women aren't in my league (ex:- far far richer than me like you said or happily married) it is quite easy to find women who are all compatible, desirable, sexy and basically in that 100. My point is that people congregate into places of interest. So, if I like certain type of chick I would go to those venues she normally goes to and meet her. Example would be fucking Italian girls at Italian expat unions. (Strictly an example and example only) Like you said, I would be less selective for one night stands.
ReplyDelete