I'm absolutely the last person who is qualified to comment on the effectiveness of this approach, or this discussion in general (both because I'm not into women and because I would have no trouble pulling them left and right if I were), but I do like the ideas put forth here, and the willingness to explore.
1. Women (well, certain women) could indeed help a lot of men, though the problem is that the men who are most in need of help would be the most resistant and hostile to the very idea of women helping them. Which I guess is okay, because who needs the worst and most difficult clients, anyway?
2. It would be better to have a team than a single woman. At least to start. Because everyone is different, and you don't want one random woman teaching a guy all the stuff that SHE happens to like but that is totally not going to work with other women. Like if you ask me, guys shouldn't pay for stuff on dates generally, but if you ask another woman, she'll say they should always pay, so you need a team to give their opinions and let the guy choose how to work out the different opinions. That's useful in and of itself because you want to get him out of the mindset of "follow X+Y/Z formula and get ABC reward anyway.
So if one issue gets a resounding and adamant consensus, he should probably follow it. If it doesn't, he should probably go with the advice of the woman he best vibes with. Working with a team would also be better as far as "going out" and practicing, bc the fundamental problem most of these guys have is not being socialized IN GENERAL -- not just with women, but with people overall. They need to learn to be social with a friend group in the first place, because actually if they fixed that problem, they're very unlikely to have a woman problem at all.
3. As far what could go wrong, the obvious answer is that the client falls in love or lust with his mentor. This would be a huge problem actually. I don't know the work-around here. Even if you put in the contract that they cannot date and she's prohibited, that just leaves him thinking/hoping that she WOULD if only that stupid contract wasn't in the way.
4. Here's where I think the big benefit lies: it would be a way for women to give a guy real advice without lying to him. I think one of the main problems in "gender relations" is that women are just way, way too nice to men and protect their feelings all the time. Basically, they lie constantly, even if it's not even conscious and they just think of it as "being nice".
But it's such a deep-wired instinct that you almost can't get a woman NOT to lie to spare feelings, unless you pay her and sign a contract that you WANT real advice. Men can't really conceive of how fundamentally against female nature it is to purposely hurt someone or inflict emotional pain if we view them as at all vulnerable. Someone in charge and high up? Sure, of course, hurt away. But it is anathema to the point I think most women truly cannot bear to bring themselves to do it, to purposely hurt someone vulnerable. You can call it empathy or you can call it manipulation, but whatever it is, it exists in a way I don't think most men can conceive of.
Mothers lie to their sons because they're fully deluded about them, so I guess those aren't even lies, they're just delusion. And other women do it out of sympathy. About the only time you get the full truth, if it's hurtful, is either in an anonymous forum or when you've hurt and angered a woman so much that she's willing to say the truth because she temporarily doesn't care about hurting his feelings, while enraged. But in default state, it goes against every fiber of her being to tell a guy "you smell bad" or "you're not good looking enough for me" or "the way you always recite movie quotes as if it's hilarious is really lame" or "I liked you until we kissed and then my body just had a repulse reaction, I can't help it" or "you have been talking for 40 minutes straight without once taking a breath" or "you are incredibly boring and show no interest in anyone else" or "your attempts to make yourself seem aloof are transparent and just come off as insecure and defensive."
I think women being too nice causes problems. Because some men, in particular the ones who aren't well socialized with peers, actually believe it all, and then when they start finding out the truth as an adult, they get extremely hostile. Or maybe they never find out the truth and just remain clueless and make up their own false theories. I have noticed that men who had older sisters who were a few years older are almost always MUCH more successful with women. And that's because if they had a teenaged sister who was older, they had a woman who was mean to him and told him the truth all the time -- older sisters DNGAF. But that's about the only time that actually happens.
In sum, I think your idea is good, and the fact that men with older sisters are generally considered more desirable by women bears this out. Being a likeable and sociable person that people enjoy being around is a skill acquired like any other, through practice. Though I think the ones most in need of this type of help would not want it.
I was going to make so many of the points you made in section 4 but you beat me to it. This is my point about guys in drag being more suited for the job than women. I would also be extremely suspicious of the type of woman who wants to sign up for this. There are some women who love to deflower smart loner guys, who are too horny to realize they are mentally ill. This job would be an absolute magnet for them but that’s actually a good thing. After these guys date the wrong girl enough times, they’ll be hooked.
Well Rajeev @cactusbrahmin said he thinks he could give good advice and teach guys to slay, and I believe him. So I guess the question is, if that's the case and gay guys could best teach, why don't they?
I never watched Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, was that show just about decor or did they go into this kind of thing? Maybe the real service should be a bunch of gay guys. Lol, I wonder if that would make customers more or less resistant to the idea. I think gay guys actually could give them great advice.
Ah, well, thank you for the compliment. I didn't mean to imply that I was dripping with game, though. I have the mostly unearned fortune of being handsome / well-built and verbally adroit. I suppose have developed pretty good listening skills throughout the years.
The girl I took to senior prom was basically begging me to ravage her at the end of the night – a request I politely declined. The next year that I saw her, she gleefully told me about all the guys she had fucked in her first year at college; she was hoping to make me feel bitter for wasting my opportunity. I just felt really bad that I hurt her pride so dearly.
If there is one piece of general advice I have to give the straight bros it's that: most girls (1) each want to be seen in one or two particular ways above all else, and (2) they each respond well to a small set of certain flirtatious currencies.
The trick is to finding out what that currency is and then using it to show her that you see her for who she wants to be seen as, e.g., using humor to emphasize her intellect; or good manners to draw out her spontaneity.
Which, frankly, is exhausting work all told. Good thing men are so horny, otherwise they would have no reason to try.
Gay guys have the advantage of 1. Being guys, 2. Being more likely to see and interact with women just as people on their own terms, rather than as someone you're trying to get something out of, and interacting with them with inherent "outcome independence" in PUA lingo, and 3. Not being warped by horniness for women. So those are all big advantages. Plus it does seem like *most* gay guys are more socially and artistically adept than your average straight guy, though idk maybe that's a stereotype?
The problem is that the exact things that make gay guys "not warped by horniness for women" aren't things gay guys can impart to straight guys, unless reverse conversion therapy exists.
I think there has always been a tension between "thinking of women as people" and "women as someone you're trying to get something out of" and there is an unspoken societal contract in 2024 that if a woman is the focus of sexual attraction, she is inherently being unpersoned.
The disconnect between men hearing that having sexual feelings for a woman is inherently dehumanizing her and their lived reality that they do have sexual feelings for women has caused a lot of otherwise well-intentioned men to self-select out of the dating pool. The dating pool is disproportionately dominated by men who are unbothered by this kafkatrap, and whether that's been a good thing for women is debatable.
Any meaningful "male mentoring" program- whether led by gay guys, straight guys, or women themselves- is not going to succeed unless it can teach boys and men how to thread the needle of being respectful towards women while not feeling shame for their own sexual urges towards them.
Yeah, that last paragraph really resonates. I had to basically work through a whole internal arc of my own in the opposite direction: I can be friends with men, I can respect them highly, I can be strongly attracted to them. Finding ways to take ownership over all three of those in properly. Which is not easy, and I still don't feel I have great handle on it sometimes.
"But it's such a deep-wired instinct that you almost can't get a woman NOT to lie to spare feelings, unless you pay her and sign a contract that you WANT real advice. Men can't really conceive of how fundamentally against female nature it is to purposely hurt someone or inflict emotional pain if we view them as at all vulnerable. Someone in charge and high up? Sure, of course, hurt away. But it is anathema to the point I think most women truly cannot bear to bring themselves to do it, to purposely hurt someone vulnerable. You can call it empathy or you can call it manipulation, but whatever it is, it exists in a way I don't think most men can conceive of."
Maybe this is part of why some women grasp so tightly to ideas like patriarchy theory.
If we create a consensus that men as a group are all oppressing women as a group and that there's basically no difference between some homeless guy and Jeff Bezos, if we assume that men are always in charge and constantly in positions power over women in all contexts and scenarios, simply because they're men, then any woman who wants to can maintain her self image (not to mention the way she's perceived by others) as someone who would never hurt the vulnerable while hurting vulnerable men with impunity.
Maybe a lot of what passes for feminism these days is just a method that some women use to warp perceptions of reality around not having to acknowledge their own antisocial tendencies.
I'd absolutely trust a woman with a low body count as long as she was clearly in touch with herself as a sensual creature.
It depends on how attractive the guy is. I'm alright looking, but was less attractive back in the day when I was doing a lot of sleeping around. I never hit 100, but I also got off the market relatively quickly compared to somebody like Walt.
If you're getting laid when you aren't rich and especially attractive, there's something there.
The next big question is whether or not you can teach it. Not everybody can explain what they did. My great uncle got started in a prestige hobby later in life. He never got as good as the people who grew up doing it, but he was a highly sought out trainer because he understood explicitly what he was doing, rather than intuiting it as second nature. I think that's key for mentoring.
Depends on what my goal is. My goal was to get married and start a family as soon as possible. I’d trust the woman. If my goal was just to get laid, I’d trust the man.
Isn't there an in-between? Like a lady with 25 or a man with 50? lol
Since the question is for everyone, that's actually really hard to say. The man, if I was a dude who just wanted to get laid. The woman, if I was looking for a solid LTR. 10 or slightly fewer is a good number to work with. She's got variety and practice, but the smaller number says it means something to be when she does it. 100 is too many fur me, and it suggests an unwillingness to make women happy and a bigger interest in ego. Just my initial impression with only the information given. Who knows how these hypothetical people are IRL.
Man, by a long shot. Assuming we are giving advice to a man of course. Women are not wired to openly speak truth about touchy subjects, regardless of their partner count.
I don't know if that's true in every environment. Maybe not in a mixed-sex environment, but in a female-only space or a more anon online one, I think you'd find a lot more women willing to talk on the subject more frankly and directly, especially if their partner count is high enough to give them plenty of reference points. We always want to share our observations and experiences and see how they compare to others. I'd make whole blog posts about dicks and chest hair alone if it wouldn't look so weird and tacky lol
Pro/natural. If you naturally grow chest hair, you should keep it! In my dating days I encountered a fair number of dudes who regularly shaved it off, thinking women preferred it. Maybe other women did/do, but it grossed me out.
I would trust the advice of whichever cared more about seeing me as a person happy and fulfilled and was willing to give advice on that basis, and not for any other ulterior motive (as noble as such motives might be).
As I mentioned in my restack, this is the kind of post that deserves a much longer praise, review, and response than a throwaway line, even if I don't necessarily agree with every line. The gender gap obviously defies easy solutions, but that in no way should preclude us from trying to address it, no matter how modest the proposal. (And men and women being normal to each other instead of being at each others' throats- inject that shit into my veins.)
Your post made me think of the frequent threads that pop up consisting of women giving men dating advice. I think it is an unfortunate structural reality that most dating "advice" I've seen on the internet from women directed towards men isn't really advice. I mean, yes, it is advice in the sense that it advocates for courses of action. But at the end of the day, one gets the sense that a lot of the women giving this kind of "advice" just don't really like men that much. In fact, one could argue that their dislike of men is why they're giving the advice in the first place. As you point out, such advice isn't intended primarily to make men happier or more fulfilled, but to make them more palatable, more pleasant to be around, and less incelly. The benefit is more social than personal. Of course, by definition, men who make themselves presentable should become more well-liked and less disconnected and depressed- but there's always a structural issue with advice designed to flatter the giver or given for ulterior motives, rather than advice given because you genuinely want to see the recipient succeed.
(As an aside, I keep joking about writing that "why is Andrew Tate so popular" article one day, but I think this is a partial explanation- Tate, for all of his sexism and stupidity, is pretty clear that his goal for young boys and men is to NOT mold them into some milquetoast, docile, "healthy masculinity" ally that won't offend feminists, but to become self-actualized by someone who wants to see them succeed as men and not just someone who wants to see them become less annoying/dangerous to the rest of society. To a less offensive degree, Jordan Peterson did this, while he was still in the "make your bed" phase and before the "lobsters and drug addiction" phase. It is an unfortunate reality that sometimes advice depends on the person giving it rather than the actual content. But I digress.)
Hence, such advice- "dress nicer, shower and use deodorant, don't talk about yourself too much, but also don't make her do all the talking", is not bad advice. You will probably get more dates and happy endings doing this stuff than not doing it. But at the end of the day, it's a difficult argument to make that it's women's responsibility to increase the amount of sexual success men have in the world. The only time a woman will ever genuinely root for a man to get laid is when that woman is his mom and she wants grandkids. I think both men and women understand this on some level.
At the end of the day, I think a mentorship like the one you suggest has a lot to offer the world (even if some of the details can be worked out). We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. At the same time, where are we going to find women mentors that want to mentor boys first and foremost because they love boys and men for who they are and want to see them succeed, and not because mentoring them might make them less obnoxious and annoying to society? It's a difficult needle to thread, and with the gender gap being what it is, I doubt such genuine "female wingmen" exist in meaningful numbers, outside of said moms who want grandkids. Moreover, for everything I've said about the mentoring messaging of "making boys less annoying/dangerous", it's difficult to deny that, well, sometimes angry antisocial boys and men can be pretty annoying and dangerous. (Ask me how I know.) We can't exactly ask women or society to dismiss all that out of hand or pretend that their motives for wanting to mentor men are *entirely* for the benefit of the men themselves.
That being said, someone has to start the process somewhere, and posts like this are as good a start as any. And as a couple people pointed out below, this post is already a lot more compassionate towards the unfairer sex than the average "what should we do about those MENS???" post on the internet- so thank you for what you do.
Walt is correct. If there was a true demand for this "service," it would already exist. Women are both bad at giving men this kind of advice and also not terribly interested in doing it to begin with, for very understandable reasons. Every incel that your "female life coach" attempts to work with will simply be frustrated that he can't just go ahead and screw her instead of doing all this other crap.
I feel like women do have a huge role to play here but not in advising men per se. There is a social element of life that died for most of us some years ago which is just having a party for no reason. People dress a little nicer, have some drinks and get convivial. Women are absolute cruise directors when it comes to this. Many are also bosses at lighting, balloons, playlists, especially when it comes to making other women feel comfortable and able to socialize with men (ANTI-HOE-SCARING technology). I feel like we just need to declare a national crises and start dropping CIALIS in the water.
We don’t have to shit on single people but f we make it more fun to take the leap it will work.
(I am actually convinced that sexual harassment claims skyrocketed as offices began looking like hospitals with shitty lighting. Women get makeup. Men can at least have lighting that doesn’t make women feel like they are about to get informed consent.)
I agree with you on this and IMO the "problem" most of these Zoomers and incels have is that they don't know how to socialize and party. If they fix that the sex and romance stuff comes naturally. My biggest piece of advice to them would just be that they have to start drinking. That sounds crass or like a joke but it isn't. There is a reason that the popular crowd and the sororities and fraternities...who later graduate and become all the rich married people...have been partying and drinking together for centuries. Alcohol makes you less of an uptight prig which is much of the problem with incels and into more of a likeable person. I know people don't like to hear it bc yeah things can go wrong and people become alcoholics and ruin their lives...but most don't. And alcohol is IMO if not an actual necessity to learning how to be a fun person and make moves, then close to it.
Also, the only guys who ever had the balls to make a move or hit on me completely sober were always enormous assholes. It would be hard for me to even trust a guy who has the sober cajones to make a move without at least one drink (for the first time I mean). I honestly don't even think it's normal.
I've personally met so many young men over the past 20+ years or so who were interested primarily in a girlfriend, a whole entire romantic relationship, rather than simply getting laid by whomever. It's anecdotal, but I hardly believe that these incel dudes described in my post and everything that inspired it are truly *only* looking for sex.
Surely this isn't just an exercise in "men only want sex, women only want love, there's nothing to do about it but negotiate it." That's far too simplistic for most people.
Sure, all of that can be wrapped up in my statement as well. These are men who are defined by their inability to have a romantic relationship. Many of them will be bitter due to repeated banishments to the friendzone. They likely won't be eager to pay to spend time with yet another female who is off-limits romantically. And the hypothetical female here will have to remain constantly on guard against romantic advances from the ones that do give it a chance.
The whole arrangement seems cruel and even a bit predatory. Maybe it would seem less so if I felt that it would actually work as intended, but again, I subscribe to the idea that women give bad advice to men on this subject. For instance, if I were to advise a man on this topic, I would simply tell him to make more money. A woman who is being paid for her time has an incentive *not* to make her advice that simple and straightforward, her incentive instead would be to drag it out into a bunch of elaborate details that probably don't matter very much at the end of the day. And her "clients" are likely to end up feeling betrayed and more bitter than ever if they don't end up getting their money's worth.
As someone else pointed out, for a lot of these men, you might as well just pay actual escorts for this purpose. At least you get to screw them regardless of anything else, the dynamic there is more honest.
I mean, if your advice to a dude to get a quality relationship is simply “make more money,” who will that money attract if he's not also sociable, charming interesting, and groomed well among other things? He will attract a shallow gold-digger, at best. Doesn't he want to feel sincerely loved and desired and appreciated, as well?
I take issue with the accusation of it being cruel and predatory to want well-intentioned, well-matched young women to enter into an open, transparent, end-date-required business relationship to help teach confused young men who are lonely victims of being the porn-addicted screen generation how to be more attractive to women in the real world. Maybe it won't work; like I said, it's the male version of a tongue-in-cheek societal re-imagining of how to help young zoomer kids who don't know how to actually live, especially in relation to the opposite sex. It's not a serious re-imagining of how women can take over the world and make men worse than they ever were.
Well sure, men do need to choose carefully, but that info is already out there and easy to access—I would recommend “The Tactical Guide to Women” by Shawn Smith, which I personally found to pretty much nail the topic.
The idea of paying someone to make you “sociable, charming and interesting,” I’m sorry, but that’s just not much of a real thing. If it were the PUA movement would still be around. The idea that you can compensate for personal qualities (such as not making enough money) with simply “having a personality” is a feminist myth. It may work for casual hook-ups, not for long-term relationships and marriage.
Obviously you need to have some degree of social skills, but IME, this is best learned by actually going out and, y’know, socializing. Learn by doing, the same way that everyone else does. If you need that much help getting started, I’d recommend simply going to church over paying a woman for some kind of life coach arrangement.
I'm going to be as kind as possible, while your proposal has its heart in the right place its biggest flaw is the nature of men and women. Women have tried. The consistently fail.
1. Solipsistic nature of women make it difficult to implement the praxeology it actually takes.
2. Women can barely handle their own emotional outbursts, let alone give advice on how to navigate the emotions of another.
3. Men that need help will instinctively orbit these women exacerbating the issue.
4. Women communicate subvertly and concern themselves far too much with tone. Men, especially those who aren't getting women, need overt communication.
5. The intrasexual competition between women lead them to subconsciously sabotage other women even if they have no intent on mating with said male, which will lead to sabotage of male success.
6. I could list a bunch more, but this one in and of itself is enough: Honesty needs to come before feelings, reputation and kindness. Not the strong suit of women.
I am certain you mean well, Lirpa. I mean no ill will, but this is an area best served by men for men.
Wow!People so sure in their own personal sexual status that they can't/won't recognise the level of patronising that they're indulging in towards incels. Start at the beginning as they used to say. Why has this level of inceldom come about?Given that it's the western world that's being talked about what should be an acknowledged factor is the skewed sex ratio due to mass immigration of mostly males to those countries. Along with the other generally accepted factors of more asymmetrical education outcomes and dating apps of course. When talking about a cohort that at this stage numbers in the millions attributing "vengeful movie theatre and nightclub shootings and shit "is a cheap shot and unworthy.Other observations and solutions become more and more insulting and bizarre almost in equal measures."Hope for a time when the social climate allowed men to pursue women safely in public again "but for now a bodyguard is necessary. Of course bring the nightclub bouncer along too..But 3s a crowd and all that 🙄 ..So who might be to blame for that shift?"Prefer to see people help each other out like the natural opposite sex friendships that used to evolve before screen and swiping dopamine addicts ".Did they really though?
"Tension between thinking of women as people v thinking of women as someone you're trying to get something out of "So there's a quick remedy there:remind them women aren't your mother. But whither the gay male who has been referenced many times as having something to offer..Of course his success with his desired gender is based upon thinking of men as someone you're trying to get something out of. With an average of 1000 sexual partners over a lifetime how could it be otherwise. And it was Marc Cherry the creator of TV shows like Desperate Housewives who said that it was hilarious for gay guys like himself what straight men had to do to get laid when they often had zero common interests. The reality is that once women find a male physically attractive enough she'll sleep with him no matter what her current relationship status she's in which is why more women cheat than men (with the same guys of course).I didn't think I'd ever say this but suddenly the Manosphere seems very attractive..
There's tons of them now bc computers and then the internet and video games were invented which gave introverted, cerebral boys a reason to spend all their time in a digital disembodied fantasy world and a way to escape the more painful and mundane and disappointing real world. At least back in the day they would eventually be forced to have to stop playing D&D and go out in the real world or they'd be drafted or whatever, now there is always a ready escape that is much more immediately appealing and erodes their real life skills til they're way behind their peers and at that point it's almost too late/intimidating to try to catch up socially. Bc dealing with other people is no different any other skill and takes muscle memory, practice, failure etc before improving.
I just want you to know how bad I'm fighting that temptation to restack your quote "I'd make whole blogs about dicks and chest hair alone" just bc it's hilarious absent context. But I won't bc I'm such a nice lady. 😉
Waaalt... Waaalt... your posts suck walt... you're a milquetoast middle-aged millennial walt... there are people more right-wing than you ever will be, walt...
Matchmakers. You are talking about matchmakers. Go watch "Match Me Abroad", matchmaker Katarina does basically everything you describe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH7EWoB0rGw
>The goal here would be for women to use their skills with compassion and empathy to help train men on how to be attractive in all ways that naturally lead a woman to want to have sex with him in the first place. It would help boost his confidence. - Check
> women who had a temperament suited toward helping young men - check
> they would be coaching them on how to both act decent in society - check
> and also in a way that attracts women, coming straight from the horse’s mouth. - check
> The women are being paid to be honest with these men and, ideally, the service would include a thorough compatibility check to ensure that the pairings were as similar in temperament and outlook as possible and matched around what each man would want to look for in a real-life woman outside the “practice” scenarios - check, except that the pairings are made with other women
> In this service, the women and their clients would go on “practice dates” once a week or more for a set amount of time, and with a goal in mind. - check, except that the practice dates are with other women (but the man and matchmaker analyse them together afterwards)
The limiting factor for this service is that it requires a lot of labor from the matchmaker so prices are high. I don't think there's a good way to get around the high prices. Having one matchmaker per man would increase expenses even more, I don't see any mention in your post for how to sell this service at the price that would be needed.
I think matchmaking is on the rise in the west, so at least that's that.
This half-baked idea would vary slightly from matchmaking services, as it would act like more of the precursor to an actual match, but I love the idea, nonetheless, and am kind of happy it's making a comeback.
I have no idea what it would cost, honestly, but I thought about it being included as a sort of internship program for young women in complementary fields, but I would want to avoid the institutional capture in order to best serve the guys who want the service but are not interested in a woke lecture that many women in those majors are likely to have absorbed.
But a matchmaker already does the precursor things. Harald pays Katarina to match him. Katarina says "First we need to fix the way you dress, and also here's some tips for how to talk with women". Then she sends him on a date she knows he will flub just to get some practice (good idea, real practice should start early in most learning situations IMO). Then they analyse the date and discuss how Harald can improve on future dates. All of this is precursor things. Where in this would an escort-without-sex add any value?
(If Katarina over-exploits her female dating pool to get practice dates for bad men, then it could be useful for her to have an escort-without-sex who can do the practice dates instead. But if that's a problem for her then I assume she can handle that in a light-weight way with some of the women in the dating pool who seem suitable, and the guy would never know that his date was paid or given favors (and that's better for him).)
Matchmakers also have the better value offer, they are selling an actual product (a match), not just "coaching" or "mentorship".
I am sorry, please don't take it personally, but the sexless escort idea sounds extremely dumb.
For starters, high tier incels you mostly refer to can get this service for free, or in exchange for validation or whatever they are able to provide a girl in a friendzone relationship.
The sexless relationship sounds like a female narcissist fantasy of a relationship with usual benefits for a woman, but depriving the man the most important relationship benefit he truly wants and needs, all guised under the premise of the woman somehow helping the man in question.
Inceldom and being relationship-incapable is a male problem that men should solve in their own group, by combining the best from the PUA/Peterson/male mentoring approaches.
I can see the appeal. I recall slightly older women being a hugely beneficial influence in my teens and early twenties. Acquaintances, older cousins' girfriends, senior schoolmates. Women 2 to 10 years older than me, casually or earnestly dropping wisdom on how to behave around girls — or just how to behave, period. Casual friendship and banter between the sexes and across slight age divides are among my most cherished memories, and I hope they don't go the way of the dodo for Gen Z.
There's a woman doing this on instagram, she charges 250 a session and she advertises with thirst trap gym pics and tik tok dances, I can't imagine a situation where this isn't just a woman taking advantage of young mens need for emotional connection. Having been at one time a very lonely young man, I can't imagine something like this not being emotional torture especially if he starts to have feelings.
The solution is mandatory hard military service for two years, the old style with 20 men to a tent, in nasty conditions, no women, and hard work building infrastructure or fighting. Two years to build the body, mind, confidence, camaraderie, and a feeling of belonging in society. But it wouldn’t work in today’s mixed America.
When you say "mixed America," are you referring to racial diversity in the current military? I know a lot of men in the military, and veterans. I am quite literally surrounded by them every day where I live. Many of them are unsure if not outright opposed to trans women serving with them, but I've seen even the most otherwise conservative and even homophobic white active duty and veteran dudes talk about how some of their best friends in the military were black. I'm not a veteran and obviously not a man, but I think race seems to matter less than gender in this area.
I also doubt there will be much support for mandatory military service, period.
We make friends with the people we are around. They are not always the closest or most compatible.
I was heavily influenced by South Africans growing up, and by their stories. I don’t think it’s possible to understand the success of their country without the mandatory military service of the white Afrikaner population. But it was different. Homogenous and close in a way our military isn’t. The brotherhood is here, but temporary, not connected to the wider society. People will leave and go to their racial enclaves. The military is something different, outside society.
I honestly really like the idea of mandatory civil service in *some* way for all young people. I appreciate that young men and young women need their sex-segregated spaces during this time for many reasons, and my thinking that some kind of civil service would be a good thing doesn't mean I want to insert women into these established men's groups, but rather that there is a place for everyone to serve their country in some way or another that builds character during the most impressionable years of a person's life.
What do you think of Israel's mandate that all men AND women serve a mandatory period in their military? I don't know much about the dynamics between the men and women there, but it seems they've managed to secure a pretty formidable military doing what they do.
Part of the benefit of hard male military service is the bullying and hazing. The trial by fire in situations where one link can break the chain. This cannot happen with women around. It either doesn’t, or it becomes about showing off and becomes legitimately dangerous. Sexual competition is powerful.
I'm absolutely the last person who is qualified to comment on the effectiveness of this approach, or this discussion in general (both because I'm not into women and because I would have no trouble pulling them left and right if I were), but I do like the ideas put forth here, and the willingness to explore.
I think this would be an incredible asset. Not having a horse in the race. You could officiate.
Couple thoughts:
1. Women (well, certain women) could indeed help a lot of men, though the problem is that the men who are most in need of help would be the most resistant and hostile to the very idea of women helping them. Which I guess is okay, because who needs the worst and most difficult clients, anyway?
2. It would be better to have a team than a single woman. At least to start. Because everyone is different, and you don't want one random woman teaching a guy all the stuff that SHE happens to like but that is totally not going to work with other women. Like if you ask me, guys shouldn't pay for stuff on dates generally, but if you ask another woman, she'll say they should always pay, so you need a team to give their opinions and let the guy choose how to work out the different opinions. That's useful in and of itself because you want to get him out of the mindset of "follow X+Y/Z formula and get ABC reward anyway.
So if one issue gets a resounding and adamant consensus, he should probably follow it. If it doesn't, he should probably go with the advice of the woman he best vibes with. Working with a team would also be better as far as "going out" and practicing, bc the fundamental problem most of these guys have is not being socialized IN GENERAL -- not just with women, but with people overall. They need to learn to be social with a friend group in the first place, because actually if they fixed that problem, they're very unlikely to have a woman problem at all.
3. As far what could go wrong, the obvious answer is that the client falls in love or lust with his mentor. This would be a huge problem actually. I don't know the work-around here. Even if you put in the contract that they cannot date and she's prohibited, that just leaves him thinking/hoping that she WOULD if only that stupid contract wasn't in the way.
4. Here's where I think the big benefit lies: it would be a way for women to give a guy real advice without lying to him. I think one of the main problems in "gender relations" is that women are just way, way too nice to men and protect their feelings all the time. Basically, they lie constantly, even if it's not even conscious and they just think of it as "being nice".
But it's such a deep-wired instinct that you almost can't get a woman NOT to lie to spare feelings, unless you pay her and sign a contract that you WANT real advice. Men can't really conceive of how fundamentally against female nature it is to purposely hurt someone or inflict emotional pain if we view them as at all vulnerable. Someone in charge and high up? Sure, of course, hurt away. But it is anathema to the point I think most women truly cannot bear to bring themselves to do it, to purposely hurt someone vulnerable. You can call it empathy or you can call it manipulation, but whatever it is, it exists in a way I don't think most men can conceive of.
Mothers lie to their sons because they're fully deluded about them, so I guess those aren't even lies, they're just delusion. And other women do it out of sympathy. About the only time you get the full truth, if it's hurtful, is either in an anonymous forum or when you've hurt and angered a woman so much that she's willing to say the truth because she temporarily doesn't care about hurting his feelings, while enraged. But in default state, it goes against every fiber of her being to tell a guy "you smell bad" or "you're not good looking enough for me" or "the way you always recite movie quotes as if it's hilarious is really lame" or "I liked you until we kissed and then my body just had a repulse reaction, I can't help it" or "you have been talking for 40 minutes straight without once taking a breath" or "you are incredibly boring and show no interest in anyone else" or "your attempts to make yourself seem aloof are transparent and just come off as insecure and defensive."
I think women being too nice causes problems. Because some men, in particular the ones who aren't well socialized with peers, actually believe it all, and then when they start finding out the truth as an adult, they get extremely hostile. Or maybe they never find out the truth and just remain clueless and make up their own false theories. I have noticed that men who had older sisters who were a few years older are almost always MUCH more successful with women. And that's because if they had a teenaged sister who was older, they had a woman who was mean to him and told him the truth all the time -- older sisters DNGAF. But that's about the only time that actually happens.
In sum, I think your idea is good, and the fact that men with older sisters are generally considered more desirable by women bears this out. Being a likeable and sociable person that people enjoy being around is a skill acquired like any other, through practice. Though I think the ones most in need of this type of help would not want it.
I was going to make so many of the points you made in section 4 but you beat me to it. This is my point about guys in drag being more suited for the job than women. I would also be extremely suspicious of the type of woman who wants to sign up for this. There are some women who love to deflower smart loner guys, who are too horny to realize they are mentally ill. This job would be an absolute magnet for them but that’s actually a good thing. After these guys date the wrong girl enough times, they’ll be hooked.
Well Rajeev @cactusbrahmin said he thinks he could give good advice and teach guys to slay, and I believe him. So I guess the question is, if that's the case and gay guys could best teach, why don't they?
I never watched Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, was that show just about decor or did they go into this kind of thing? Maybe the real service should be a bunch of gay guys. Lol, I wonder if that would make customers more or less resistant to the idea. I think gay guys actually could give them great advice.
Ah, well, thank you for the compliment. I didn't mean to imply that I was dripping with game, though. I have the mostly unearned fortune of being handsome / well-built and verbally adroit. I suppose have developed pretty good listening skills throughout the years.
The girl I took to senior prom was basically begging me to ravage her at the end of the night – a request I politely declined. The next year that I saw her, she gleefully told me about all the guys she had fucked in her first year at college; she was hoping to make me feel bitter for wasting my opportunity. I just felt really bad that I hurt her pride so dearly.
If there is one piece of general advice I have to give the straight bros it's that: most girls (1) each want to be seen in one or two particular ways above all else, and (2) they each respond well to a small set of certain flirtatious currencies.
The trick is to finding out what that currency is and then using it to show her that you see her for who she wants to be seen as, e.g., using humor to emphasize her intellect; or good manners to draw out her spontaneity.
Which, frankly, is exhausting work all told. Good thing men are so horny, otherwise they would have no reason to try.
Gay guys have the advantage of 1. Being guys, 2. Being more likely to see and interact with women just as people on their own terms, rather than as someone you're trying to get something out of, and interacting with them with inherent "outcome independence" in PUA lingo, and 3. Not being warped by horniness for women. So those are all big advantages. Plus it does seem like *most* gay guys are more socially and artistically adept than your average straight guy, though idk maybe that's a stereotype?
The problem is that the exact things that make gay guys "not warped by horniness for women" aren't things gay guys can impart to straight guys, unless reverse conversion therapy exists.
I think there has always been a tension between "thinking of women as people" and "women as someone you're trying to get something out of" and there is an unspoken societal contract in 2024 that if a woman is the focus of sexual attraction, she is inherently being unpersoned.
The disconnect between men hearing that having sexual feelings for a woman is inherently dehumanizing her and their lived reality that they do have sexual feelings for women has caused a lot of otherwise well-intentioned men to self-select out of the dating pool. The dating pool is disproportionately dominated by men who are unbothered by this kafkatrap, and whether that's been a good thing for women is debatable.
Any meaningful "male mentoring" program- whether led by gay guys, straight guys, or women themselves- is not going to succeed unless it can teach boys and men how to thread the needle of being respectful towards women while not feeling shame for their own sexual urges towards them.
Yeah, that last paragraph really resonates. I had to basically work through a whole internal arc of my own in the opposite direction: I can be friends with men, I can respect them highly, I can be strongly attracted to them. Finding ways to take ownership over all three of those in properly. Which is not easy, and I still don't feel I have great handle on it sometimes.
"But it's such a deep-wired instinct that you almost can't get a woman NOT to lie to spare feelings, unless you pay her and sign a contract that you WANT real advice. Men can't really conceive of how fundamentally against female nature it is to purposely hurt someone or inflict emotional pain if we view them as at all vulnerable. Someone in charge and high up? Sure, of course, hurt away. But it is anathema to the point I think most women truly cannot bear to bring themselves to do it, to purposely hurt someone vulnerable. You can call it empathy or you can call it manipulation, but whatever it is, it exists in a way I don't think most men can conceive of."
Maybe this is part of why some women grasp so tightly to ideas like patriarchy theory.
If we create a consensus that men as a group are all oppressing women as a group and that there's basically no difference between some homeless guy and Jeff Bezos, if we assume that men are always in charge and constantly in positions power over women in all contexts and scenarios, simply because they're men, then any woman who wants to can maintain her self image (not to mention the way she's perceived by others) as someone who would never hurt the vulnerable while hurting vulnerable men with impunity.
Maybe a lot of what passes for feminism these days is just a method that some women use to warp perceptions of reality around not having to acknowledge their own antisocial tendencies.
Question for everyone:
Would you trust the advice of a woman who had sex with fewer than 10 men more OR a man who had sex with more than 100 women?
I'd absolutely trust a woman with a low body count as long as she was clearly in touch with herself as a sensual creature.
It depends on how attractive the guy is. I'm alright looking, but was less attractive back in the day when I was doing a lot of sleeping around. I never hit 100, but I also got off the market relatively quickly compared to somebody like Walt.
If you're getting laid when you aren't rich and especially attractive, there's something there.
The next big question is whether or not you can teach it. Not everybody can explain what they did. My great uncle got started in a prestige hobby later in life. He never got as good as the people who grew up doing it, but he was a highly sought out trainer because he understood explicitly what he was doing, rather than intuiting it as second nature. I think that's key for mentoring.
Depends on what my goal is. My goal was to get married and start a family as soon as possible. I’d trust the woman. If my goal was just to get laid, I’d trust the man.
Isn't there an in-between? Like a lady with 25 or a man with 50? lol
Since the question is for everyone, that's actually really hard to say. The man, if I was a dude who just wanted to get laid. The woman, if I was looking for a solid LTR. 10 or slightly fewer is a good number to work with. She's got variety and practice, but the smaller number says it means something to be when she does it. 100 is too many fur me, and it suggests an unwillingness to make women happy and a bigger interest in ego. Just my initial impression with only the information given. Who knows how these hypothetical people are IRL.
Grinds my gears that I can edit comments on Notes but not on my own comment section.
I think you can edit your comments by clicking the ellipsis in the bottom right corner of the comment?
On my app, you can only share, hide, or delete it. I haven't checked desktop yet, though.
gotcha, I see. Learned something new today. The ellipsis is on the desktop version.
Man, by a long shot. Assuming we are giving advice to a man of course. Women are not wired to openly speak truth about touchy subjects, regardless of their partner count.
I don't know if that's true in every environment. Maybe not in a mixed-sex environment, but in a female-only space or a more anon online one, I think you'd find a lot more women willing to talk on the subject more frankly and directly, especially if their partner count is high enough to give them plenty of reference points. We always want to share our observations and experiences and see how they compare to others. I'd make whole blog posts about dicks and chest hair alone if it wouldn't look so weird and tacky lol
Pro or con chest hair?
Pro/natural. If you naturally grow chest hair, you should keep it! In my dating days I encountered a fair number of dudes who regularly shaved it off, thinking women preferred it. Maybe other women did/do, but it grossed me out.
Agreed. It’s like top surgery for straight guys.
😂
I would trust the advice of whichever cared more about seeing me as a person happy and fulfilled and was willing to give advice on that basis, and not for any other ulterior motive (as noble as such motives might be).
As I mentioned in my restack, this is the kind of post that deserves a much longer praise, review, and response than a throwaway line, even if I don't necessarily agree with every line. The gender gap obviously defies easy solutions, but that in no way should preclude us from trying to address it, no matter how modest the proposal. (And men and women being normal to each other instead of being at each others' throats- inject that shit into my veins.)
Your post made me think of the frequent threads that pop up consisting of women giving men dating advice. I think it is an unfortunate structural reality that most dating "advice" I've seen on the internet from women directed towards men isn't really advice. I mean, yes, it is advice in the sense that it advocates for courses of action. But at the end of the day, one gets the sense that a lot of the women giving this kind of "advice" just don't really like men that much. In fact, one could argue that their dislike of men is why they're giving the advice in the first place. As you point out, such advice isn't intended primarily to make men happier or more fulfilled, but to make them more palatable, more pleasant to be around, and less incelly. The benefit is more social than personal. Of course, by definition, men who make themselves presentable should become more well-liked and less disconnected and depressed- but there's always a structural issue with advice designed to flatter the giver or given for ulterior motives, rather than advice given because you genuinely want to see the recipient succeed.
(As an aside, I keep joking about writing that "why is Andrew Tate so popular" article one day, but I think this is a partial explanation- Tate, for all of his sexism and stupidity, is pretty clear that his goal for young boys and men is to NOT mold them into some milquetoast, docile, "healthy masculinity" ally that won't offend feminists, but to become self-actualized by someone who wants to see them succeed as men and not just someone who wants to see them become less annoying/dangerous to the rest of society. To a less offensive degree, Jordan Peterson did this, while he was still in the "make your bed" phase and before the "lobsters and drug addiction" phase. It is an unfortunate reality that sometimes advice depends on the person giving it rather than the actual content. But I digress.)
Hence, such advice- "dress nicer, shower and use deodorant, don't talk about yourself too much, but also don't make her do all the talking", is not bad advice. You will probably get more dates and happy endings doing this stuff than not doing it. But at the end of the day, it's a difficult argument to make that it's women's responsibility to increase the amount of sexual success men have in the world. The only time a woman will ever genuinely root for a man to get laid is when that woman is his mom and she wants grandkids. I think both men and women understand this on some level.
At the end of the day, I think a mentorship like the one you suggest has a lot to offer the world (even if some of the details can be worked out). We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. At the same time, where are we going to find women mentors that want to mentor boys first and foremost because they love boys and men for who they are and want to see them succeed, and not because mentoring them might make them less obnoxious and annoying to society? It's a difficult needle to thread, and with the gender gap being what it is, I doubt such genuine "female wingmen" exist in meaningful numbers, outside of said moms who want grandkids. Moreover, for everything I've said about the mentoring messaging of "making boys less annoying/dangerous", it's difficult to deny that, well, sometimes angry antisocial boys and men can be pretty annoying and dangerous. (Ask me how I know.) We can't exactly ask women or society to dismiss all that out of hand or pretend that their motives for wanting to mentor men are *entirely* for the benefit of the men themselves.
That being said, someone has to start the process somewhere, and posts like this are as good a start as any. And as a couple people pointed out below, this post is already a lot more compassionate towards the unfairer sex than the average "what should we do about those MENS???" post on the internet- so thank you for what you do.
Walt is correct. If there was a true demand for this "service," it would already exist. Women are both bad at giving men this kind of advice and also not terribly interested in doing it to begin with, for very understandable reasons. Every incel that your "female life coach" attempts to work with will simply be frustrated that he can't just go ahead and screw her instead of doing all this other crap.
I feel like women do have a huge role to play here but not in advising men per se. There is a social element of life that died for most of us some years ago which is just having a party for no reason. People dress a little nicer, have some drinks and get convivial. Women are absolute cruise directors when it comes to this. Many are also bosses at lighting, balloons, playlists, especially when it comes to making other women feel comfortable and able to socialize with men (ANTI-HOE-SCARING technology). I feel like we just need to declare a national crises and start dropping CIALIS in the water.
We don’t have to shit on single people but f we make it more fun to take the leap it will work.
(I am actually convinced that sexual harassment claims skyrocketed as offices began looking like hospitals with shitty lighting. Women get makeup. Men can at least have lighting that doesn’t make women feel like they are about to get informed consent.)
I agree with you on this and IMO the "problem" most of these Zoomers and incels have is that they don't know how to socialize and party. If they fix that the sex and romance stuff comes naturally. My biggest piece of advice to them would just be that they have to start drinking. That sounds crass or like a joke but it isn't. There is a reason that the popular crowd and the sororities and fraternities...who later graduate and become all the rich married people...have been partying and drinking together for centuries. Alcohol makes you less of an uptight prig which is much of the problem with incels and into more of a likeable person. I know people don't like to hear it bc yeah things can go wrong and people become alcoholics and ruin their lives...but most don't. And alcohol is IMO if not an actual necessity to learning how to be a fun person and make moves, then close to it.
Also, the only guys who ever had the balls to make a move or hit on me completely sober were always enormous assholes. It would be hard for me to even trust a guy who has the sober cajones to make a move without at least one drink (for the first time I mean). I honestly don't even think it's normal.
I've personally met so many young men over the past 20+ years or so who were interested primarily in a girlfriend, a whole entire romantic relationship, rather than simply getting laid by whomever. It's anecdotal, but I hardly believe that these incel dudes described in my post and everything that inspired it are truly *only* looking for sex.
Surely this isn't just an exercise in "men only want sex, women only want love, there's nothing to do about it but negotiate it." That's far too simplistic for most people.
20+ years OR SO*
Sure, all of that can be wrapped up in my statement as well. These are men who are defined by their inability to have a romantic relationship. Many of them will be bitter due to repeated banishments to the friendzone. They likely won't be eager to pay to spend time with yet another female who is off-limits romantically. And the hypothetical female here will have to remain constantly on guard against romantic advances from the ones that do give it a chance.
The whole arrangement seems cruel and even a bit predatory. Maybe it would seem less so if I felt that it would actually work as intended, but again, I subscribe to the idea that women give bad advice to men on this subject. For instance, if I were to advise a man on this topic, I would simply tell him to make more money. A woman who is being paid for her time has an incentive *not* to make her advice that simple and straightforward, her incentive instead would be to drag it out into a bunch of elaborate details that probably don't matter very much at the end of the day. And her "clients" are likely to end up feeling betrayed and more bitter than ever if they don't end up getting their money's worth.
As someone else pointed out, for a lot of these men, you might as well just pay actual escorts for this purpose. At least you get to screw them regardless of anything else, the dynamic there is more honest.
I mean, if your advice to a dude to get a quality relationship is simply “make more money,” who will that money attract if he's not also sociable, charming interesting, and groomed well among other things? He will attract a shallow gold-digger, at best. Doesn't he want to feel sincerely loved and desired and appreciated, as well?
I take issue with the accusation of it being cruel and predatory to want well-intentioned, well-matched young women to enter into an open, transparent, end-date-required business relationship to help teach confused young men who are lonely victims of being the porn-addicted screen generation how to be more attractive to women in the real world. Maybe it won't work; like I said, it's the male version of a tongue-in-cheek societal re-imagining of how to help young zoomer kids who don't know how to actually live, especially in relation to the opposite sex. It's not a serious re-imagining of how women can take over the world and make men worse than they ever were.
Well sure, men do need to choose carefully, but that info is already out there and easy to access—I would recommend “The Tactical Guide to Women” by Shawn Smith, which I personally found to pretty much nail the topic.
The idea of paying someone to make you “sociable, charming and interesting,” I’m sorry, but that’s just not much of a real thing. If it were the PUA movement would still be around. The idea that you can compensate for personal qualities (such as not making enough money) with simply “having a personality” is a feminist myth. It may work for casual hook-ups, not for long-term relationships and marriage.
Obviously you need to have some degree of social skills, but IME, this is best learned by actually going out and, y’know, socializing. Learn by doing, the same way that everyone else does. If you need that much help getting started, I’d recommend simply going to church over paying a woman for some kind of life coach arrangement.
I'm going to be as kind as possible, while your proposal has its heart in the right place its biggest flaw is the nature of men and women. Women have tried. The consistently fail.
1. Solipsistic nature of women make it difficult to implement the praxeology it actually takes.
2. Women can barely handle their own emotional outbursts, let alone give advice on how to navigate the emotions of another.
3. Men that need help will instinctively orbit these women exacerbating the issue.
4. Women communicate subvertly and concern themselves far too much with tone. Men, especially those who aren't getting women, need overt communication.
5. The intrasexual competition between women lead them to subconsciously sabotage other women even if they have no intent on mating with said male, which will lead to sabotage of male success.
6. I could list a bunch more, but this one in and of itself is enough: Honesty needs to come before feelings, reputation and kindness. Not the strong suit of women.
I am certain you mean well, Lirpa. I mean no ill will, but this is an area best served by men for men.
Wow!People so sure in their own personal sexual status that they can't/won't recognise the level of patronising that they're indulging in towards incels. Start at the beginning as they used to say. Why has this level of inceldom come about?Given that it's the western world that's being talked about what should be an acknowledged factor is the skewed sex ratio due to mass immigration of mostly males to those countries. Along with the other generally accepted factors of more asymmetrical education outcomes and dating apps of course. When talking about a cohort that at this stage numbers in the millions attributing "vengeful movie theatre and nightclub shootings and shit "is a cheap shot and unworthy.Other observations and solutions become more and more insulting and bizarre almost in equal measures."Hope for a time when the social climate allowed men to pursue women safely in public again "but for now a bodyguard is necessary. Of course bring the nightclub bouncer along too..But 3s a crowd and all that 🙄 ..So who might be to blame for that shift?"Prefer to see people help each other out like the natural opposite sex friendships that used to evolve before screen and swiping dopamine addicts ".Did they really though?
"Tension between thinking of women as people v thinking of women as someone you're trying to get something out of "So there's a quick remedy there:remind them women aren't your mother. But whither the gay male who has been referenced many times as having something to offer..Of course his success with his desired gender is based upon thinking of men as someone you're trying to get something out of. With an average of 1000 sexual partners over a lifetime how could it be otherwise. And it was Marc Cherry the creator of TV shows like Desperate Housewives who said that it was hilarious for gay guys like himself what straight men had to do to get laid when they often had zero common interests. The reality is that once women find a male physically attractive enough she'll sleep with him no matter what her current relationship status she's in which is why more women cheat than men (with the same guys of course).I didn't think I'd ever say this but suddenly the Manosphere seems very attractive..
There's tons of them now bc computers and then the internet and video games were invented which gave introverted, cerebral boys a reason to spend all their time in a digital disembodied fantasy world and a way to escape the more painful and mundane and disappointing real world. At least back in the day they would eventually be forced to have to stop playing D&D and go out in the real world or they'd be drafted or whatever, now there is always a ready escape that is much more immediately appealing and erodes their real life skills til they're way behind their peers and at that point it's almost too late/intimidating to try to catch up socially. Bc dealing with other people is no different any other skill and takes muscle memory, practice, failure etc before improving.
Lazy take. Chicken and the egg.
I just want you to know how bad I'm fighting that temptation to restack your quote "I'd make whole blogs about dicks and chest hair alone" just bc it's hilarious absent context. But I won't bc I'm such a nice lady. 😉
😂 I'm glad someone gets it
Not touching the topic of the essay, but do want to say spot on curated artwork...
Haha! Thanks. First time an AI generator did what I wanted it to do. Walt inspired me, what can I say.
Same here. Trying to come up with design ideas for not one but two Substack's now.
Maybe the whole thing was just a Lirpa Loof.........a belated one of course.
Waaalt... Waaalt... your posts suck walt... you're a milquetoast middle-aged millennial walt... there are people more right-wing than you ever will be, walt...
AI art is gay walt...
Huh
Matchmakers. You are talking about matchmakers. Go watch "Match Me Abroad", matchmaker Katarina does basically everything you describe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH7EWoB0rGw
>The goal here would be for women to use their skills with compassion and empathy to help train men on how to be attractive in all ways that naturally lead a woman to want to have sex with him in the first place. It would help boost his confidence. - Check
> women who had a temperament suited toward helping young men - check
> they would be coaching them on how to both act decent in society - check
> and also in a way that attracts women, coming straight from the horse’s mouth. - check
> The women are being paid to be honest with these men and, ideally, the service would include a thorough compatibility check to ensure that the pairings were as similar in temperament and outlook as possible and matched around what each man would want to look for in a real-life woman outside the “practice” scenarios - check, except that the pairings are made with other women
> In this service, the women and their clients would go on “practice dates” once a week or more for a set amount of time, and with a goal in mind. - check, except that the practice dates are with other women (but the man and matchmaker analyse them together afterwards)
The limiting factor for this service is that it requires a lot of labor from the matchmaker so prices are high. I don't think there's a good way to get around the high prices. Having one matchmaker per man would increase expenses even more, I don't see any mention in your post for how to sell this service at the price that would be needed.
I think matchmaking is on the rise in the west, so at least that's that.
This half-baked idea would vary slightly from matchmaking services, as it would act like more of the precursor to an actual match, but I love the idea, nonetheless, and am kind of happy it's making a comeback.
I have no idea what it would cost, honestly, but I thought about it being included as a sort of internship program for young women in complementary fields, but I would want to avoid the institutional capture in order to best serve the guys who want the service but are not interested in a woke lecture that many women in those majors are likely to have absorbed.
But a matchmaker already does the precursor things. Harald pays Katarina to match him. Katarina says "First we need to fix the way you dress, and also here's some tips for how to talk with women". Then she sends him on a date she knows he will flub just to get some practice (good idea, real practice should start early in most learning situations IMO). Then they analyse the date and discuss how Harald can improve on future dates. All of this is precursor things. Where in this would an escort-without-sex add any value?
(If Katarina over-exploits her female dating pool to get practice dates for bad men, then it could be useful for her to have an escort-without-sex who can do the practice dates instead. But if that's a problem for her then I assume she can handle that in a light-weight way with some of the women in the dating pool who seem suitable, and the guy would never know that his date was paid or given favors (and that's better for him).)
Matchmakers also have the better value offer, they are selling an actual product (a match), not just "coaching" or "mentorship".
I am sorry, please don't take it personally, but the sexless escort idea sounds extremely dumb.
For starters, high tier incels you mostly refer to can get this service for free, or in exchange for validation or whatever they are able to provide a girl in a friendzone relationship.
The sexless relationship sounds like a female narcissist fantasy of a relationship with usual benefits for a woman, but depriving the man the most important relationship benefit he truly wants and needs, all guised under the premise of the woman somehow helping the man in question.
Inceldom and being relationship-incapable is a male problem that men should solve in their own group, by combining the best from the PUA/Peterson/male mentoring approaches.
For context, I managed to graduate from incels to getting laid to becoming relationship capable by selective application of self-improvement and PUA approaches, written more on this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/transhumanista4all/p/confessions-of-a-pickup-artist-pt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=wn8wj
Good take.
I can see the appeal. I recall slightly older women being a hugely beneficial influence in my teens and early twenties. Acquaintances, older cousins' girfriends, senior schoolmates. Women 2 to 10 years older than me, casually or earnestly dropping wisdom on how to behave around girls — or just how to behave, period. Casual friendship and banter between the sexes and across slight age divides are among my most cherished memories, and I hope they don't go the way of the dodo for Gen Z.
There's a woman doing this on instagram, she charges 250 a session and she advertises with thirst trap gym pics and tik tok dances, I can't imagine a situation where this isn't just a woman taking advantage of young mens need for emotional connection. Having been at one time a very lonely young man, I can't imagine something like this not being emotional torture especially if he starts to have feelings.
Yeah and then feel like he’s being subtly pitied
The solution is mandatory hard military service for two years, the old style with 20 men to a tent, in nasty conditions, no women, and hard work building infrastructure or fighting. Two years to build the body, mind, confidence, camaraderie, and a feeling of belonging in society. But it wouldn’t work in today’s mixed America.
When you say "mixed America," are you referring to racial diversity in the current military? I know a lot of men in the military, and veterans. I am quite literally surrounded by them every day where I live. Many of them are unsure if not outright opposed to trans women serving with them, but I've seen even the most otherwise conservative and even homophobic white active duty and veteran dudes talk about how some of their best friends in the military were black. I'm not a veteran and obviously not a man, but I think race seems to matter less than gender in this area.
I also doubt there will be much support for mandatory military service, period.
We make friends with the people we are around. They are not always the closest or most compatible.
I was heavily influenced by South Africans growing up, and by their stories. I don’t think it’s possible to understand the success of their country without the mandatory military service of the white Afrikaner population. But it was different. Homogenous and close in a way our military isn’t. The brotherhood is here, but temporary, not connected to the wider society. People will leave and go to their racial enclaves. The military is something different, outside society.
I honestly really like the idea of mandatory civil service in *some* way for all young people. I appreciate that young men and young women need their sex-segregated spaces during this time for many reasons, and my thinking that some kind of civil service would be a good thing doesn't mean I want to insert women into these established men's groups, but rather that there is a place for everyone to serve their country in some way or another that builds character during the most impressionable years of a person's life.
What do you think of Israel's mandate that all men AND women serve a mandatory period in their military? I don't know much about the dynamics between the men and women there, but it seems they've managed to secure a pretty formidable military doing what they do.
Israel does it for survival, not because it’s the most effective social engineering strategy.
Part of the benefit of hard male military service is the bullying and hazing. The trial by fire in situations where one link can break the chain. This cannot happen with women around. It either doesn’t, or it becomes about showing off and becomes legitimately dangerous. Sexual competition is powerful.