Noted pussyconomist Roosh Valizadeh offers these sobering thoughts on the rising costs — and decreasing quality — of vagina:
The quality of women—both their appearance and their attitude—is sliding to the bottom while the work we have to expend to meet these more inferior females is increasing. This phenomenon of pussy inflation is starting to force men out of the market, for what “average” man can find the time, ability, and motivation to seduce a merely cute woman who may only want to fuck him a couple times before becoming distracted by the next shiny object that gets placed in her path? If this inflations proceeds, the only men who will get laid consistently are ones who approach it like a job, blocking out a minimum of two hours a day to the task.
If anything Roosh is underestimating the dangers here. During Germany’s hyperpussyflation in the early 1920s, men had to devote as many as 3700 hours a day in order to score with merely cute women. Indeed, it is rumored that some of these men were forced to wipe their own asses in order to make themselves more appealing to women.
The reality we face right now is this: the quality of men around the world is increasing to compete with a decreasing quality of women. This is great if you’re a woman, because without lifting a finger you can get better than a couple years before. If you’re a man and didn’t step up your game recently, however, you will get lower results. If you don’t stay on top of the latest game scientific data or dating app, you will be out-competed. Or you’ll just get nothing. Inflation often helps those who have debt, but if you have no debt, if you lived life prudently and with virtue, inflation destroys your purchasing power. As much as men improve themselves, women are appreciating in relative value as they make all the wrong decisions with their lives. This is the world we live in.
To be honest, Roosh, I don’t think you and I live in the same world.
@titianblue This is my personal experience. I’ve been an ugly ducking and the nerdy, not so good looking guys I would have dated didn’t pay attention until I improved my looks. It wasn’t until I got prettier that I heard the “stuck up bitch” comments.
It’s actually a restaurant in China.
I don’t think I could take three more years of man pain, especially if it means no 11.
11 had maybe 2 facial expressions and Moffat’s writing makes me yell and throw things at the TV.
3 more years of 10 and RTD would’ve been right up my alley. Yes, I’d have to suffer RTD, but hey, I’d have Tennant and no Moffat!
I’m glad to find other Tennant-lovers.
3 years as the Doctor seems to be the average. Tom Baker throws things off, of course.
You can probably tell I don’t agree with you about Moffat. Seeing as arguing about Moffat recently led to a suicide scare around a young transwoman on Tumblr, like, literally last week, I don’t think there’s much to gain in doing it here.
@gilshalos: Oh, David Tennant is a wonderful actor, and 10 has some of the best episodes in the new show.
My opinions about Moffat can be summed up as: Excellent writer of malfunctioning robots (his two-parter under 9 and “Girl in the Fireplace” were both absolutely beautiful), absolute arse biscuit as a showrunner. Also, the people he has working for him are abject incompetents, and he can’t seem to avoid stepping in sexism.
He IS responsible for “Into the Dalek”, though, so I was willing to give him one more chance. Then that episode with the blitzer thing at the school happened.
Welp, we just talked to a client who just lost a little cousin in a school bus wreck. The cousin’s twin brother survived, although he was injured.
Not going to be worrying about THAT all night, nosirree.
I need a platypus break:
http://youtu.be/a6QHzIJO5a8
What?
Wait, don’t tell me, because I don’t need to know. Still, everyone, I may disagree with you on who the best doctor and best writers of Doctor Who are (4 and Douglas Adams [SHADA], oldschool, and RTD and Nine, New School FTW), but I still like you all.
Like, really.
I may find your view-points silly at times — like, seriously, Kale is awful and if you like it there’s something off about your taste-buds — but I still like you and nobody needs to self harm because of varying tastes and preferences. Please!
Re: Tuning
Tuning with a Tuner is totes not cheating. My mom (who is a far better guitar player than I, because I prefer my blasted woodwinds) usually just gets close by ear and does a fine-tuning with the tuner. Tuners can sometimes be dirt cheap and there are even tuner apps for phones now!
Dad, the bass player, usually just goes by ear. He tunes the low string to hers and then does the harmonics.
Aside from the ever repeated plot devices and the unrelenting sexism he fails repeatedly at show don’t tell in that what he tells is in direct contradiction to what he shows. I don’t care for his work either on DW or Sherlock. Unfortunately they pay writers so poorly he appears to be the best they can afford on a regular basis.
The Matching hypothesis isn’t exactly unknown, and it’s been studied a fair amount. The snark at Erika Miller’s comment seems kinda unwarranted. I’m not saying the theory is true, but I just don’t understand the mockery of the poster over it.
This is why, despite reading this blog regularly, I rarely comment, and only skim the comments.
I get that you’ve all been together for a while and have had to deal with unknown numbers of trolls, but some commenters here are really quick on the trigger to shame someone.
I dunno, maybe Erika is a longtime troll and y’all have your reasons. It’s just something I’ve noticed. While lambasting the rightfully-lambastable manosphere, we might caution ourselves to realize that not everyone that reads this blog or comments on it is either “one of us” or “OTHER!” Especially with it’s current popularity, being seen by many people who are at different stages of knowledge regarding these topics and not necessarily the experts everyone here is.
Oh, hi Erika!
Didn’t see you because I skim, and usually don’t notice too much beyond whatever page I happen to land on.
I’m ace, so I could be way off base and, if so, my apologies. But… it seems like you dodged a bullet there! That is, if I’m reading correctly and you’re implying that these guys that did the stuck up comments were the same guys you would have been willing to give a chance.
So, if you want congratulations on dodging a bullet, have them!
If you don’t, then sorry?
I mean, I’m not sure what response is the correct one.
Also, glad to see another nerd on the thread.
Only one person snarked I think. I actually agree with Erika that if men who don’t fit into standards of conventional beauty are going to be really picky and only be with women who are very conventionally beautiful, that’s fine but they shouldn’t complain or be surprised when they have trouble finding a partner.
… Yeah, I went back and skimmed and I only see the one primary snark with a couple tangential snarks from other commentors mainly going off the snark and not referring to the source material.
Threads get a life of their own sometimes.
Also, yeah, if guys are going to be picky about beauty standards they shouldn’t be too surprised if the people they’re trying to pick go “Nope!”
I mean, ideally people don’t care about conventional beauty standards and care about character and personality, but these guys don’t really seem to have much of a character or personality beyond “kind of skeevy PUA” to care for… so even if the ladies they were gunning for were the type to be totally into judging for personality and character, they’d probably still go “Nope!” to these guys.
…and people are always allowed to find attractive what they find attractive, and a dude saying “I’m nice, so why don’t you want to do things with me! You’re a stuck up nasty person who only hates me because I’m ugly!” is just kind of silly, at bare minimum and scary at worst.
I mean, a dude demanding I find him sexually attractive isn’t going to make me find him sexually attractive.
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way.
It may not stand out to the regulars. But as a relatively new visitor, those things sure as hell stand out to me, when trying to decide whether to say something here.
I agree too. People who aren’t equally conventionally attractive pair up all the time, nobody is taking issue with that, what Erika was getting at is the idea that it’s unreasonable to walk around simply expecting that people far more attractive than yourself will throw themselves at you just because you have a penis, and heaping scorn on people as “ugly” who’re actually about as conventionally attractive as you are. It’s the hypocrisy that she was getting at, and the giant sense of entitlement that would lead a person to think that how they look doesn’t matter but how women look does because (insert evopsych bullshit used to rationalize sense of entitlement here).
Also, honestly, I don’t agree that nobody should care about the way a potential partner looks. That most cultures have a beauty standard that’s awfully narrow and that changing that would be a good thing, sure, but the idea that character and personality should be the only things people base their attraction to people on gets a confused headscratch from me. More variation in what’s seen as attractive and people being allowed to express their individual preferences rather then socially coerced into only admitting to liking what everyone else says they like – good. Telling people that they’re not allowed to have physical preferences at all – not good at all, imo, and never going to work anyway.
@lani
Hugs, if you want them 🙂 Someone else already said this, but focus on you – on being the kind of person and doing the kinds of things that make you happy and feel good about yourself. Good relationships happen when the people involved like each other for their authentic selves, and see their partner as valuable just for being who they are, flaws and all.
Re: Doosh’s video. I couldn’t not watch. At one point he proudly displays the huge hole in his bedsheet as evidence of his vigorous sexual escapades, though I suspect the culprit was actually his toenails.
Well skyward slew it is quite possible that there are those who prefer to lurk because we are too snappish for their comfort. You don’t appear to be reluctant to criticize us with your first comment, so I do not know who you imagine yourself to be speaking for.
I’m not sure why his failure to buy new sheets (or at least change the sheets, does he ever do that or have these ones been on for years, unwashed?) is supposed to prove anything other than his lack of housekeeping ability, which we already knew about.
Cassandrakitty, fair enough!
It’s all magic to me, anyways… and maybe I should just keep my head out of this type of conversation, because I’m way under-qualified. I wasn’t trying to suggest no one is allowed or should have preferences, but if it came across that way, I’ll do my best to be better!
Yes, tastes and preferences are totally fine and no one needs to choose partners based solely on character, or mostly on character, or whatever.
People can partner with whoever they want to partner with, so long as partner also wants to partner with them.
That’s what I got out of Erika’s comment as well, and I completely agree.
Character + personality can lead to physical attraction – it did with Busband, for me, as I wasn’t attracted to him at all when we first met. But yeah, it has to be there, for me anyway. If not, then… well, we’re friends. I’ve tried having romantic relationships with people I adored but didn’t find physically attractive, and it just didn’t work.
If you disagree with the snarky response to Erika’s post, that’s fine (and I agree, she had a point), but if you’re honestly interested in fitting in, try pointing it out without being a tone-policing ass, hmm?
@Cassandra he actually says he doesn’t bring ‘girls’ back to his place any more and hasn’t for awhile, yet… there be the SuperSexSheets™ in all their whiffy, slightly translucent, holey glory. So, yep.