Thursday, November 14, 2013

Three Billion Women, and what this means for One-Night Stands

My post on The "three billion women" argument was primarily about finding a partner. This is not the goal of everyone, but for every chest-pounding virgin on PUA forums who claims that he wants to bang more women than Genghis Khan has there are hundreds who secretly wish to just have a girlfriend. Of course, part of the problem is that some of those guys have the twisted idea that women would only have sex within relationships, while one-night stands are reserved for studs and guys which coke, but that would be a different topic altogether.

Let's say you're a reasonably well adjusted guy and you want to sow your wild oats for a while. Women don't just marry anybody, but their criteria for a one-night stand are often much lower. This is particularly true if she's got self-esteem issues and thinks that having some random dude bust a nut in her would make her feel desired and accepted. There's no shortage of such women out there.

Let's just take a different branch in the previous Fermi estimate, and continue at the point where we had whittled down the number of available women to about 5,000. Social class will still plays a role, but women are a bit less strict about that if they only want your cock instead of your wallet. So, if you're in the middle of society, then we'll be a bit generous and assume that you'll have no access to the top 10 % of society, and that you have no interest in getting involved with the bottom 20 %, for a variety of reasons. Both seems to be rather plausible percentages. So, you're down to 3,500 women, vs the previous 2,500.

Let's say your standards are slightly lower for women when it comes to one-night stands, so you only exclude 50 instead of 60 %. This leads to 1,750 vs. the previous 1,000. That's already an enormous difference. However, you'll probably find it easier to bang a chick whose worldview you detest --- it may even give you an extra incentive --- than one that physically repels you. Maybe you'll even say that no matter what she thinks, if she's hot, you'd bang her. It's just for one night anyway, or maybe for a week or two. Then you're at 1,750 vs. 500 women, and since you only want to get laid, you couldn't care less about whether your personalities are compatible. Then you're still at 1,750 women to chose from, while the guy who is going for relationships is down to 100. Those 100 he first has to find, while the other guy will relatively easily bump into women belonging to the other much larger crowd. All of this will make an enormous difference for their relative success rates.

Of course, the problem is that when it comes to one-night stands, women are more interested in your looks, so the better looking guys couldn't even fuck all the women who are willing to spread their legs for them, while guys who had less luck in the genetic lottery and thought that surely some women will find man-boobs sexy might have much less success. It's not as if any guy would have the same variety to chose from.

But what was the point of all of this? First, you might think that those Fermi estimates are a bit stupid. Well, they are used in science, for instance when eyeballing possible results of an experiment, before making any measurements. They are also quite popular with some HR departments, so you might find yourself confronted by an HR ditz straight out of ASU who asks you, "So, um, like, how many pingpong balls would, like, fit in a bus to make it, like, totally full."

Sure, you can dispute some of the number or percentages. But the assumption is that the errors in over- and underestimating values would cancel each other out. It's not at all perfect. However, if you play around with those numbers, and then use real data whenever it's available, you'll reach some pretty plausible numbers. Speaking of the first part of this article, I was looking for an explanation why it seemed so difficult to find a girl suitable for a relationship. In this article, on the other hand, the guiding question was why it is so much easier to get laid than to get a girlfriend. I won't claim that I have presented a proof that it's 17x times easer to get a one-night versus finding a girl that might make a great girlfriend. The former is certainly a lot easier. You have probably experienced that of the girls you bang, you can barely stand any of them once you spend more time with them. This is all due to their personality. More concretely, it's due to the extent and severity of the difference between your and her personality. Yes, PUA-tards, I know that your angle is to change your personality on the fly, but we all know how well this is has been working out for you.

Also, an aspect I have not considered is that aspects like traveling --- let's use Spring Break vacations as a particular infamous example --- can boost your sex life dramatically. If it's 17x times easier to find a girl for a ONS than a relationship back home, it's probably hundreds of times easier to get laid on Spring Break than to find a girlfriend there. Further, living in a tourist town will give some guys many opportunities to get laid, at least during season. Then there are college towns with a large transient population. It may not be so great if you wanted to find a wife, but you'll probably have a few good years banging incoming freshmen students.

What do you think of all this? Let me know in the comments below!


  1. Regarding Casual Sex and lower standards (there is an important clarification to make).

    The research generally divides attraction into "long-term" and "short-term". A less confusing way to term them I will use is to call them "personality-based attraction" and "lust-based attraction".

    - Personality based attraction is attraction based on who you are as a person, that includes your status, your personality, how you act, think, behave etc.

    - Lust based attraction is based on how horny/desperate she is, and what your physical type, physical shape are etc...

    NOW... Both casual sex and relationships are based on a mix of both. But the ratio-factor is very different.

    +) In relationships females don't factor in lust as much. That means if your personality attraction is high, you basically only have to pass "not physically repelling" as a standard. Or if you're super rich and famous, you can even get away not being her type at all physically and being fat, old etc...

    +) In casual sex, females don't factor in personality very much, casual sex is almost entirely based on physical lust, being her type or being physically hot etc etc. If you're really hot you can have the absolute most repelling behavior and still qualify. Your personality, status behavior has such a low factoring in casual sex, that UNLESS you're SUPER-high-status or super rich and famous - when you have casual sex with a chick, you should assume its ONLY because you're her physical type and no other reason.

    - In relationships, women's personality criteria are higher, but their lust criteria are lower
    - In casual sex, women's personality criteria are LOWER, but their lust criteria are HIGHER

    This also demonstrates why "game" is a scam

    The research is very clear that females evolved these factor ratios SPECIFICALLY to deal with male-deceit. You can't make a female more attracted in the short-term using "game" (changing how you walk, talk, implementing status cues etc etc) BECAUSE it doesn't EVEN FACTOR IN at this short-term contextual level! (i.e. its such a small factor that unless you're rich and famous it makes little real world difference).

    In the short-term, female attraction ONLY factors in traits that are "impossible to fake". i.e. physical shape, facial shape, being her type etc.

    The longer-term the relationship, the more these things start factoring in SPECIFICALLY because its hard to fake things for a long time. If a female delays sex from you for a month, ITS SPECIFICALLY because she has almost no lust-based attraction to you, and it took that long for your personality-attraction to be "confirmed"* i.e you can't pretend to like her type of music for a month and not get caught out. You can't pretend to have certain level of status for that long etc...

    *(I'm simplifying for the sake of accessibility)

  2. p.s. Have to mention false positives

    One thing that often screws guys over into believing this "game stuff" works is because it often produces false positives in the short-term. For example if you learn tricks to show higher-status and you learn personality/behaviour based "game/pua" tricks - you can go out and use these tricks and you notice the CONVERSATIONS ARE LONGER... more women are GIVING YOU NUMBERS and doing less backturns when you say hello. More of them are accepting dates even!!!

    However, all you've done is tricked her into giving you a chance. If you use a behaviour (as a technique) and it produces more dates, its only because you're faking BEING someone you're not.

    That's why these idiots have so many dates and numbers that lead nowhere and all end in flakes. All they're doing is postponing the rejection.

    And if you use a bunch of "game tricks" and techniques and you do end up having a few one-night stands? YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THEM ANYWAY - they were entirely lust-based.

    (p.s. I'm commenting using alternate-login since blogger-thing is broken)

  3. Doesn't this just mean that being in a relationship (fuck buddy or long term) means that you will have more sex than having one night stands.

    1. That's certainly true as well. The amount of time it takes to get a ONS, for one sexual encounter, makes this a rather inefficient strategy. On the other hand, other factors, like the thrill of the chase, and a desire for variety, but also ego-gratification, play a role as well, so a guy interested in ONS but in nothing more long-term would probably cite those reasons, too.

  4. Alek Novy, If it is impossible to fake qualities to a woman why do narcissists and sociopaths get away with it all the time?

    I think you overestimate the general ability of women to discover deceit. Why are there still ponzi schemes and stuff like that? Why do people still get conned? It wouldn't surprise me if you could con a woman who is having an off day into sleeping with you, as many guys seem to do.

    1. Look at the guy who creeped out the entire OSU campus as an example for how well sociopaths get away with it. Also, the entire PUA community is very good proof that it is --- in general --- a really poor strategy to pretend to be someone else. Finding a desperate chick here and there is hardly what I would call "all the time".

    2. @Anonymous, you seem to be suffering from serious reading issues. I did not write what you read. I'll assume good faith and explain what you misread.

      The research I was quoting DOES NOT SAY that women "consciously detect deceit" NOR did I ever say "you can't fool women".

      IN FACT I point blank say YES you CAN scam women into believing you're someone whom you're not. Yes you can scam them into believing you are someone other than you are.

      The point is IT DOESN'T MATTER or make a difference in terms of getting laid [all it does is postpone rejection or produce false positives]

      (and here's why, I hope you'll be able to read it this time)...

      - In the short-term women's attraction IS ONLY based on things that are un-fakeable. YOU CAN NOT pretend to be a different height than you really are, you can't act out having a different facial shape etc etc. Women's biology SPECIFICALLY evolved this way so that EVEN IF you successfully tricked her into believing you are high-status (when you're not) it still wouldn't actually make her fuck you that night since status DOESNT EVEN FACTOR IN at the short-term (its such a low percent in the short-term formula that unless you convince her you're brad pitt, it won't make a difference)

      - Status/personality ONLY factors in for the LONG-TERM, meaning that you can't "create attraction" by faking higher-status or a different personality, since by the time it factors in, your mask will fall off

      - AND YES psychopaths and SOCIOPATHS do trick some gullible/naive women into prolonging a doomed relationship by false promises, lies etc. But how does that relate to you? If you want a relationship, why would you want one with a chick who is only with you due to faking/pretending and false promises etc?

      But that's also off-topic and not what PUAs promise, is it?

      PUAs/Gamers promise that you can CREATE/BOOST/MANIPULATE levels of attraction through behaviour/personality modifications - this is the part I'm tackling as being pure bullshit. They claim that you can walk up to a chick in a bar or a street, and just by changing how you walk or talk or what you say - you'll "create" attraction. They can't seem to explain why despite 10-15 years of honing their craft, they get no better ratios than a random dude just asking "wanna come to my place?"

  5. Aaron, check this site out:
    You can get a quick overview on how many dates/relationships celebrities have on average. And as you can also see on that site, you can easily link two apparently unrelated celebrities and see how they relate to each other. The results are quite stunning.

  6. Aaron ... what do you think of this guy then ?

    This guy is homeless , not in a great shape (a.k.a fat) but with only his confidence he gets laid 4 days a week on average and the rest of the days he sleeps on the concrete.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.