Q. Now that we’ve discussed a man’s looks, let’s talk about the looks of the average female. I personally believe the average female looks better than ever with access to amazing makeup, other beauty products, and stylish clothing (most especially those tights/yoga pants that makes almost any woman’s ass look great)

A. I think we need to differentiate between beauty and beauty products. As you know, I tend to stress the importance of fundamentals a lot. You do the same with your statement that guys should be the best version of themselves they can be. What I see with beauty products, however, is that there is a sizable number of women who seem to think that beauty products and nice clothes are more important than, say, being toned. This reminds me of a time when I hung out with a friend in Berlin-Mitte, a business and prime residential area. He seemed very impressed by the looks of some woman walking past He saw a perfect ten. I saw a thick layer of makeup, a fake nose, fake lips, fake tits, and most likely hair extensions. I also noticed that she was “skinny-fat”. In my view she was not attractive at all. I think the big difference is between just looking at how some women present themselves, and picturing them naked. I really don’t care all that much about fancy clothes and makeup and whatnot if a woman isn’t in decent shape. On the other hand, I find that a slender, toned woman with attractive facial features, or even one with a plain face who is in great shape, is much more likely to turn my head than lipstick on a pig with bolted on tits. So, sure, on average women could look better than ever, but if they don’t exercise, then those yoga pants won’t look quite as good on them.

Q. As somewhat of a byproduct of this, I think there’s more of an obsession with women now than ever. I never thought about it much until more recently, and it’s quite common on parts of the net for men to make women their main priority and base EVERY decision they make as to whether it will help them score with more women or not. Although these decisions often pertain to their physique, style, and grooming, I wanted to specifically touch on finances. Lots of men ponder on ways to get more money in order to be more successful with women. While having more money will improve your chances, I think you should focus on making more money so YOU have less financial worries and so YOU can pursue your hobbies and such. It’s my belief that taking a job you don’t particularly like to begin with or working an extra 10 hours a week just so your girl can have the credit for the afternoon is a TERRIBLE idea/situation. In fact, I think men should run from women who are ONLY interested in them because of their finances. Could you expand on some of the points I’ve made here?

A. Of course you normally need to be able to make a living if you want to get anywhere with women. On the other hand, the difference between an okay salary and the kind of money you make after a couple of promotions is hardly earth shattering. I’m not talking about outliers like people who make partner at a law firm or in consulting or anything like that. For most guys, a bit of extra money will allow them to get a slightly nicer car, or a bigger place in a slightly more attractive part of town. However, on a salary you will most likely never make the kind of money that would allow you to get a penthouse, a new sports car every year, or a nice table at a club in St. Tropez, with bottles of champagne and half a dozen models that get seated next to you because you tipped fantastically well the last three nights.

I certainly see that a lot of men live well beyond their means, hoping that this will allow them to score with the ladies. Those 30k millionaires, as they are affectionately called, seem to be missing a part of their brain. They would be much better off just getting a high-class escort every once in a while instead of trying to attract the kind of woman they could impossibly keep around. So, let’s say they meet some up-and-coming model in an expensive club: do they think they will now be able to jet-set around the world, stay at five-star hotels and dine in the finest restaurants? If it’s not that and they are merely after a gold-digging secretary who is barely a 7 but thinks she’s easily a 10: sorry, guys, but you’re a bunch of idiots.

Instead, you are infinitely better off if you get a job you enjoy enough so that you don’t hate yourself and that allow you to have a private life. You’d be surprised how easy it is to pick up women if nothing fazes you. Thus, you’ll probably do a lot better if your work is okay and it doesn’t stress you very much, which means that you don’t need a couple of beers after work to numb yourself, or end up sitting four hours an evening in front of the TV. A related trap too many guys seem to fall in is to live for some unspecified moment in the future. In the middle ages, priests told the unwashed masses that everything is fine and dandy because the hardship they endure will be rewarded in the afterlife. Today, people dream of whenever they get their next promotion, which allows them to get a new car, or they fantasize about their great life as pensioners. This may be well and good if you’re close to retirement age, but if you are 30 and have similar thoughts, you are borderline insane. In fact, I had a conversation somewhat like that some years ago, and a guy of roughly my age said that he rather saves up so that he can enjoy his retirement and enjoy his “golden years”. I raised an eyebrow, and in the end his wisdom culminated in the statement that once he is 60 he surely won’t regret not having fucked x number of women 30 years ago, but instead will enjoy the good life has to offer. Of course, this was a rather extreme case. Yet, it’s not at all uncommon that people don’t fix their life today, and instead always intend to take action at some vague point in the future. However, your quality of life will only get worse. You have about three good decades on this planet, roughly your early-to-mid-20s to your late 40s, if you are lucky. If you don’t make some experiences by a certain age, then that window will have closed for good. Once your finances are totally secure and you think you can now, finally, enjoy life, chances are that you’re 45, overweight, and full of pent up sexual frustration.

Q. I agree. When it comes to obsessing over women I think one part of the net that is the absolute worst for this is the manosphere/”red pill” guys. I personally find these sites to be useless and I’d advise guys not to pay any attention to them. However, I can’t force guys to do anything and it’s my belief that most young men who read these sites would have to feel pretty lousy about themselves. Basically EVERYTHING you do in the run of the day should be done in a manner that will help you hookup with more women. There’s certainly no denying that women can get “slut shamed” for their behavior. However, it’s my belief that these “red pill” sites often “hookup shame” men. Men are are basically told (in as many words anyways) that they’re a “loser,” a “beta male,” or a “cuck” if they can’t get “pull” that blonde at the bar on the weekend or they don’t have 20 women crawling off them at all times. Ironically, I often wonder how well some of the “leaders” themselves do with women. Can you expand?

A. I fully agree with you. Frankly, the core issue of the manosphere is that those people are full of resentments. True, some of the things I write about women are a bit negative as well, and women can indeed be a huge drain on your mental energy with some of their behaviors. However, some women are really great to be around. Hanging out with a young good looking woman who is a bubbly bundle of joy, and who loves to have sex with you, is one of the best things life has to offer. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of bitches and uglos on this planet, though. The issue for the frustrated men of the manosphere, is that if you hold resentments against women, maybe just because no girl wanted to kiss you in high school, or no chick in the club ever grinds her ass into your crotch, you are going to suck. They look at you and if they are not completely drunk, they realize that you’re human garbage that should not engage in any kind of sexual activity. Without a positive attitude, pickup is a waste of time — and now picture a stereotypical manospherean: inexperienced, rejected by Western women, and harboring delusions of grandeur. How is he supposed to get anywhere? A large part of that community seems to do nothing but jerk each other off while thinking of all the women they would bang if they only travelled to the flavor of the month third-world country.

Q. That’s an interesting point you made about having a positive mindset with women. It’s quite difficult to meet women if you despise them. There’s no denying that women can a pain in the neck at times, but as you said, it’s a great feeling to go on date/date a really beautiful and fun woman. One thing I can’t seem to understand for the life of me with these guys is why they are constantly complaining about how women are such sluts nowadays? It’s likely true that the average woman is more promiscuous than ever, but shouldn’t this be good for them since they’re supposedly such “players” to begin with? If they were actually getting laid all time as they claim (highly unlikely) then they should be happy about this. Shouldn’t they? 

Well, sluts are women who have sex with everyone but you. Thus, it doesn’t take much to realize where this conundrum of the manosphere originated from.

Q. Speaking of the player lifestyle, it’s my belief that it’s not for everyone and some men are much happier with a girlfriend but get it in their head that they should be trying to pickup random women all the time. It’s also my belief that guys don’t want to be seen as the “beta male” for wanting a relationships so they play off this “tough guy” act instead instead of going for what they really want with women. I’ve certainly met quite a few men over the years that if they so desired could be cleaning up with women but prefer to date one girl exclusively. Thoughts on this?

A. Of course. I’d say any guy who is able to keep a high-quality girlfriend could easily clean it up with the ladies. I would say this is self-evident, so there is not much to add.

Q.  Vert true. Also, even though a man may be able to hookup with a lot of women, there’s certainly no lack of potential drawbacks. You run the risk of contracting an STD, an unplanned pregnancy (or at the very least, a pregnancy scare). If a guy is really serious about this, he will really need to shake up his life a lot as was mentioned by Paul Janka in this podcast I did with him. Also, in your book “Club Game” (which I recommend) you discuss this in the chapter, “Making it a lifestyle.” Men may need to put themselves in a location that will be more optimal for this lifestyle. For example, your current location may not be so great for meeting women but your job is amazing and your career is really taking off. If you were to move, you may get a job that pays worse but you have easier access to a lot of women. Living in downtown Montreal comes to mind as a place that is AMAZING for a single guy who has things in place. There’s several reasons for this and this article sums it up quite nicelyIt’s quite cheap with 4 star apartments going for as low as $900 (Canadian currency)  per month on St. Catherine’s (aka street that has like a gazillion shops and “9”s and “10’s” roaming the streets like you wouldn’t believe) including all utilities. However, it may be difficult for a person to find good employment in Montreal and it’s also difficult to get work there if you can’t speak French. So there’s definitely trade-offs to your living setup. Obviously the best setup would be to live in a city where you can make good money/advance with your career and then have easy access to women when you have free time. Thoughts on this? 

A. I encounter this trade-off a lot. For instance, in Germany there are a lot of so-called hidden champions, i.e. companies you’ve never heard off but who make hundreds of millions in revenue and dominate their particular niche. They also tend to be located in the middle of nowhere. You can probably see where this is going. Well, to make it a bit more interesting: I once had a fling with a woman who worked for such a company, accounting, I think. Anyway, she travelled for an hour to Berlin every few weeks just to party, and as luck would have it, she eventually ended up with my dick in her. I visited her once, and she tried really hard, it was quite comical in fact, to convince me how great life in her 20,000 people shithole was. Her rent is cheap, nature is relaxing, there is a nice delicatessen nearby, and there are a lot of young, educated people around! Well, what really was the case was that apparently all the hot women left that town, and the influx mostly consisted of male engineers, and apparently some misguided career women, too. Some of the pairing you would not have believed: decent looking guys, in shape, tall, educated, good salary, and their girlfriends looked like dogs. There is always the issue that some guys just don’t know what they could get and settle for scraps. However, a regular, well-adjusted guy is arguably a lot better off trying to find a decent balance and focus more strongly on lifestyle than career. A few extra grand a year amount for very little if there is nothing you can do with it. This goes back to what I previously said about putting one’s life on hold.

Q.  Speaking of career, I’d like to hear you share some thoughts on the current job market. There’s no doubt the economy is rough and it’s my belief that an education is more important now than ever. However, even though I find most of the “red pill” advice useless, I do agree with them on the fact that an arts/science degree by itself with no intent of going further is going to put you into massive debt and get you a job that barely pays much more than minimum wage, or at best, a shaky substitute teaching gig. I think trades are definitely on the rise, and although some may not be able to afford an expensive education program, I do believe you need some type of training to get ahead nowadays. Could you share some thoughts on this and perhaps comment on some “trends” or areas you think may be in high demand for years to come?

A. Personally, I think that taking on massive debt for education is a rather risky proposition. Exceptions are if you get into an M7 business school or a T14 law school. Law seems to have gotten a lot more competitive, so even a T14 offer may not be a guaranteed golden ticket anymore. I am not even sure that a STEM degree is necessarily a good choice. In the last few years we witnessed a myriad of initiatives to increase the number of STEM graduates. However, if demand was as high as those initiatives were suggesting, then salaries surely would be higher. Basically, in the US tech salaries have been flat for about two decades, if you take inflation into account. However, compared to many other professions, salaries in tech are still rather high, which is arguably why initiatives like Code.org are so heavily supported by industry (just have a look at their partners: https://code.org/about/partners).

Still, in the mid-to-long-term a STEM education is most likely your best bet. If you don’t want to bother with university, pick a trade that can’t be easily automated. The problem is rather fundamental because society is running out of work. This has been going on since at least the 1970s. To fudge the numbers, the higher education sector was then massively inflated. It’s apparently better if Joe and Jill study some bullshit major that conveys no marketable skills instead of working for Starbucks straight away. I’m not even joking. After the most recent financial crisis we have seen jobless growth. Most new jobs have been in the service industry, while many formerly well-paid jobs simply disappear. Software is indeedeating the world. Even highly-specialized professions are getting threatened by automation. Today, computers already produce news articles for business and sports (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/28/computer-writing-journalism-artificial-intelligence). Pilots may disappear, cab drivers too. There may even be much less of a need for lawyers and doctors, since computers can automate some time-consuming and error-prone tasks (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/15/robot-doctors-online-lawyers-automated-architects-future-professions-jobs-technology).

But even if you think that you’ll get ahead of the curve and get a degree in Computer Science, or fall for the coding bootcamp marketing spiel: that won’t be a guaranteed career either. We are currently already in a tech bubble with fantasy evaluations of “unicorns” en masse. This means that there will be a contraction sooner rather than later. On top, there are mind-blowing inefficiencies in software development, some of which are structural. If inertia will not lead to fundamental changes, then a CS degree will be an excellent bet. On the other hand, there is the potential for disruption. As a taster, check out this Wired article on WhatsApp (http://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-users-50-engineers/). They need 50 engineers to service 900 million users, which was only possible by being bold enough to use a niche programming language that excels at precisely one task. In an alternative universe, WhatsApp has 2,000 engineers that write messy Java code.

To read part 3, click here.

Pin It on Pinterest