I stumbled upon your substack and hope you don’t mind if a woman weighs in on one point that you mentioned. I think there ARE good reasons for a young woman to date young men. When I was young and single I exclusively dated men close to my age, and eventually married one who is slightly younger than me. I had zero interest in older men. In hindsight, I think this was because I was very motivated to have a balanced distribution of power in the relationship - I felt an older man would expect to dominate me, or expect me to perform a role I wasn’t comfortable with instead of allowing me to be genuine and an equal partner. Plus I think women have the same reason as men for preferring a young partner - simple physical attractiveness. Younger men also may be less set in their ways and it may be easier to form a partnership without the woman being expected to do all the accommodating - you can decide together where to live, how to build a life, because neither of you is completely settled yet. Maybe younger men appeal to women who place a lot of value on independence.
Just food for thought! I enjoyed reading and there’s a lot of truth to your approach
You mention reasons for dating (and, presumably, entering relationships) with younger/older men. I described reasons to have sex with younger/older men. These are not the same. Think of sex outside of a relationship (casual sex or sex on a 3rd date, leading towards a relationship but not quite there yet - a full sexual maturity scenario, as discussed in my other post about the Nature and Nurture of Sexiness).
I posit that 1) guys aged 18-20 often still look boyish and immature and 25+ guys are just more sexually attractive for women and 2) women are more comfortable sleeping with someone with a decent job and/or a degree than a young guy with either simple entry level job or attending college without a full time job or any other stable source of income.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that women may prefer guys who belong to their in-group (also age-wise) due to both evolutionary reasons and desired relationship dynamics influenced by modern progressive social views like gender equality.
The sexual and social/relationship desires can be conflicting (especially for more liberal women), which makes deciding about which men to sleep, date and enter relationship with a tough nut to crack.
You’re right, I should have made a distinction between dating and having sex with. However, I’d still give the same answer. (And how many of us are mature enough at age 20 to make the distinction between being good to sleep with vs good to date? Certainly not 20 year old me!)
I would say that, at least for some women, older guys represent the practical, goal-oriented choice - wealthier, responsible, more likely to want to settle down, ready for kids - while younger guys actually have far more sex appeal but have less to offer in terms of stability. I kind of think you have it backwards. For me that was just visceral - young guys were attractive and I didn’t need to compromise that because I was independent-minded and didn’t need to be taken care of. Admittedly I’m just one woman so take it for what it’s worth
Me too, Dee. I wasn't the only one who saw through older men's desire for younger women.
Still dealing with it, actually, at 61! I can nail every decrepit retiree in my neighbourhood if I want. Had one who wanted to marry me without even knowing my name. Just hi, how are you, are you married, gee....my wife is dead and I'm so lonely... "
Good to see you around! Yes, there is a lot of variance in individuals, and it's a pretty constant misreading of science that people fail to grasp that statistics can't say anything about any single individual.
In my understanding of the research, the vast majority of people date within two years of their own age, with some outliers. The idea that women want "good financial prospects" or wealthy men is minuscule, but, statistically speaking, there is a preference for older men. But this could also be explained by other factors. For instance, women in cultures across the globe are told to value getting married, having children, and settling down into a marriage, while we teach boys to focus on college and careers. This, in itself, is enough to argue that the differences found in age (women date older men), which are slight (about one or two years on average), aren't so much a fixture of biology but cultural. But, there's also a competing biological claim, one that Piotr's making. We know that women mature faster than boys and start puberty about two years earlier, so it's no surprise that when it comes time to marry, many, but not all, would choose someone slightly older—it's as if we're after someone on equal footing in terms of maturity. Both explanations are possible, and neither has any bearing on individuals.
I think it's important that we keep in mind how tiny these differences are. When people hear "women tend to date older men" they think of a ten-year gap or even a twenty-year gap...they don't think of a one-year gap, which is what the research says and is what gets totally left out of the sensational reporting on the subject.
Agreed with Brian and the others who said you should read The Game, it's pretty fucked up although it's written with more sympathy for the girls/women than Strauss had as a pickup artist as he'd begun to realize what he was doing. Also, he's a really good journalist - he's written for Playboy, Esquire, Rolling Stone, and other magazines.
Not ALL women are hypergamous. I wasn't, although I knew many young women in the '80s who were. I may have been among the few who recognized that older, rich men like young women not just because of their youth and beauty but because they're so malleable - more easily controlled, especially if he pays for everything.
Yes, I think that’s it. Older guys gave me the ick because there was a presumption that they wanted an unequal relationship. Why would I choose that over a relationship with an equal peer my own age, who as a bonus was probably far hotter than some old dude? (Of course back then anyone over 25 was an “old dude”, 🤣. My tastes may have adjusted slightly over the 30 years since then.)
Yeah, MM never really worked for me... It felt like trying to do math in my head while having a conversation at the same time. I think it's because I'm spectrum-ish and very open and honest by nature. And my "peacocking" phase resulted in probably a lot of people thinking I was gay. Which had...mixed results.
That said, the Love Systems (a Mystery Method offshoot) book by Nick Savoy, a student of Mystery...oh yeah "Magic Bullets". Can't recommend it enough. It basically distilled MM down into the underlying principles that, if you're successful, you're using whether you realize it or not, and are basically applicable to every other "method" as well. They are principles/aspects of psychology that are important to understand, and can serve you well also in a marriage and other circumstances.
For example, the "triad model"... Attraction, qualification and comfort aren't "phases" of a cold approach... They are the 3 emotions a woman needs to feel to want to be sexual/in a relationship with a man. She needs to feel you are high "value", physically attractive, and stimulating emotionally (attraction), she needs to feel that she is special to you for non-superficial reasons (qualification), and she needs to feel comfortable in your presence and feel you have things in common etc (comfort). (I skipped #4: "Feeling aroused by his touch without awkwardness or embarrassment"--seduction.)
What was groundbreaking about Mystery's Method was realizing the importance of sequencing... Men instinctively go for comfort (we have so much in common!), but without qualification, it feels unearned, like a beggar acting friendly for transparently needy self-serving reasons. Or they go for qualification (you are so special, not like the other girls), but again... Attraction has to come first, or you're just another guy trying to get in her pants, so none of that stuff has any value. Or if you do attract her and go for comfort but skip qualification, she may be afraid that she's just another conquest. (Skipping straight to "seduction": possible criminal charges.) Etc etc.
So it's very important to understand for single guys... But what is important to understand for men who are in a happy relationship or marriage and want to stay that way is: As the book put it, think of them not as goalposts to reach, but buckets that need to be filled, that have holes in them so they drain over time and you have to continually top them off.
PPS: Another implication of this way of thinking about it is: it's not about "manipulating" her; it's about understanding how to meet her emotional needs. Which is something that most guys aren't born with; most guys never understand, but they desperately need to, for their own wellbeing, as well as for that of their wives/girlfriends. So they need learn. But you can't learn just by listening to what women tell you, because we humans in general are bad at understanding what makes us tick.
As I wrote above, feel free to correct me - please elaborate.
What I described is what I believe was the common understanding of these concepts in the community. What the books literally said is secondary to how the people within the community understood (or didn't). Sometimes concepts and ideas take a life on its own. If the public doesn't understand what the author truly wanted to say, it might have something to do with what the message is and how it's conveyed in the medium.
My main takeaway from reading the book (15 years ago) was that Strauss and Mystery were profoundly broken people, and the PUA scene was corrosive to their souls. They viewed women as objects.
All the PUAs in it were pathetic. They learned nothing about how to be adult men, to treat women as people rather than as objects to be used and discarded. They didn't understand maintaining a relationship, when they finally settled into one. There was zero in this book about anyone learning any self-awareness. I would sincerely like to know how you got that out of PUA culture, because it's mostly a group of manchildren.
I strongly recommend you read The Game. The seduction community leaves out the most important part -- at the end he realizes that most of what he's been learning is bullshit, and that most of the people in the community are toxic assholes. The key insight is that doing lots of approaches helped him develop his confidence and let go of his insecurities, but a lot of the other stuff was unnecessary.
Also, it's extremely well-written and has fun illustrations in it.
Strauss ghost wrote Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and it's outstanding as well.
This is interesting. Richard Heart learned mystery back in the day and there are some good daygame lessons from mr looks like Vigo on Youtube. I think it evolves and adapts overtime. grateful for the articles.
I have to give credit where credit is due, and I laud your honesty and thoroughness in these pieces, even if our perspectives are wholly different. You write what most people wouldn't dare to in today's high-temperature climate and the Sex Wars going on and all. I was a much more vicious in my attack on "peacocking" than you, but still, yes, it was very misguided.
I am writing on this now and would like to mention your series on this, but I wanted to run it by you. Can I quote you on some of this? We can discuss it further if you'd like.
I stumbled upon your substack and hope you don’t mind if a woman weighs in on one point that you mentioned. I think there ARE good reasons for a young woman to date young men. When I was young and single I exclusively dated men close to my age, and eventually married one who is slightly younger than me. I had zero interest in older men. In hindsight, I think this was because I was very motivated to have a balanced distribution of power in the relationship - I felt an older man would expect to dominate me, or expect me to perform a role I wasn’t comfortable with instead of allowing me to be genuine and an equal partner. Plus I think women have the same reason as men for preferring a young partner - simple physical attractiveness. Younger men also may be less set in their ways and it may be easier to form a partnership without the woman being expected to do all the accommodating - you can decide together where to live, how to build a life, because neither of you is completely settled yet. Maybe younger men appeal to women who place a lot of value on independence.
Just food for thought! I enjoyed reading and there’s a lot of truth to your approach
Thanks for weighing in.
You mention reasons for dating (and, presumably, entering relationships) with younger/older men. I described reasons to have sex with younger/older men. These are not the same. Think of sex outside of a relationship (casual sex or sex on a 3rd date, leading towards a relationship but not quite there yet - a full sexual maturity scenario, as discussed in my other post about the Nature and Nurture of Sexiness).
I posit that 1) guys aged 18-20 often still look boyish and immature and 25+ guys are just more sexually attractive for women and 2) women are more comfortable sleeping with someone with a decent job and/or a degree than a young guy with either simple entry level job or attending college without a full time job or any other stable source of income.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that women may prefer guys who belong to their in-group (also age-wise) due to both evolutionary reasons and desired relationship dynamics influenced by modern progressive social views like gender equality.
The sexual and social/relationship desires can be conflicting (especially for more liberal women), which makes deciding about which men to sleep, date and enter relationship with a tough nut to crack.
You’re right, I should have made a distinction between dating and having sex with. However, I’d still give the same answer. (And how many of us are mature enough at age 20 to make the distinction between being good to sleep with vs good to date? Certainly not 20 year old me!)
I would say that, at least for some women, older guys represent the practical, goal-oriented choice - wealthier, responsible, more likely to want to settle down, ready for kids - while younger guys actually have far more sex appeal but have less to offer in terms of stability. I kind of think you have it backwards. For me that was just visceral - young guys were attractive and I didn’t need to compromise that because I was independent-minded and didn’t need to be taken care of. Admittedly I’m just one woman so take it for what it’s worth
Me too, Dee. I wasn't the only one who saw through older men's desire for younger women.
Still dealing with it, actually, at 61! I can nail every decrepit retiree in my neighbourhood if I want. Had one who wanted to marry me without even knowing my name. Just hi, how are you, are you married, gee....my wife is dead and I'm so lonely... "
Good to see you around! Yes, there is a lot of variance in individuals, and it's a pretty constant misreading of science that people fail to grasp that statistics can't say anything about any single individual.
In my understanding of the research, the vast majority of people date within two years of their own age, with some outliers. The idea that women want "good financial prospects" or wealthy men is minuscule, but, statistically speaking, there is a preference for older men. But this could also be explained by other factors. For instance, women in cultures across the globe are told to value getting married, having children, and settling down into a marriage, while we teach boys to focus on college and careers. This, in itself, is enough to argue that the differences found in age (women date older men), which are slight (about one or two years on average), aren't so much a fixture of biology but cultural. But, there's also a competing biological claim, one that Piotr's making. We know that women mature faster than boys and start puberty about two years earlier, so it's no surprise that when it comes time to marry, many, but not all, would choose someone slightly older—it's as if we're after someone on equal footing in terms of maturity. Both explanations are possible, and neither has any bearing on individuals.
I think it's important that we keep in mind how tiny these differences are. When people hear "women tend to date older men" they think of a ten-year gap or even a twenty-year gap...they don't think of a one-year gap, which is what the research says and is what gets totally left out of the sensational reporting on the subject.
Agreed with Brian and the others who said you should read The Game, it's pretty fucked up although it's written with more sympathy for the girls/women than Strauss had as a pickup artist as he'd begun to realize what he was doing. Also, he's a really good journalist - he's written for Playboy, Esquire, Rolling Stone, and other magazines.
Not ALL women are hypergamous. I wasn't, although I knew many young women in the '80s who were. I may have been among the few who recognized that older, rich men like young women not just because of their youth and beauty but because they're so malleable - more easily controlled, especially if he pays for everything.
Yes, I think that’s it. Older guys gave me the ick because there was a presumption that they wanted an unequal relationship. Why would I choose that over a relationship with an equal peer my own age, who as a bonus was probably far hotter than some old dude? (Of course back then anyone over 25 was an “old dude”, 🤣. My tastes may have adjusted slightly over the 30 years since then.)
Yeah, MM never really worked for me... It felt like trying to do math in my head while having a conversation at the same time. I think it's because I'm spectrum-ish and very open and honest by nature. And my "peacocking" phase resulted in probably a lot of people thinking I was gay. Which had...mixed results.
That said, the Love Systems (a Mystery Method offshoot) book by Nick Savoy, a student of Mystery...oh yeah "Magic Bullets". Can't recommend it enough. It basically distilled MM down into the underlying principles that, if you're successful, you're using whether you realize it or not, and are basically applicable to every other "method" as well. They are principles/aspects of psychology that are important to understand, and can serve you well also in a marriage and other circumstances.
For example, the "triad model"... Attraction, qualification and comfort aren't "phases" of a cold approach... They are the 3 emotions a woman needs to feel to want to be sexual/in a relationship with a man. She needs to feel you are high "value", physically attractive, and stimulating emotionally (attraction), she needs to feel that she is special to you for non-superficial reasons (qualification), and she needs to feel comfortable in your presence and feel you have things in common etc (comfort). (I skipped #4: "Feeling aroused by his touch without awkwardness or embarrassment"--seduction.)
What was groundbreaking about Mystery's Method was realizing the importance of sequencing... Men instinctively go for comfort (we have so much in common!), but without qualification, it feels unearned, like a beggar acting friendly for transparently needy self-serving reasons. Or they go for qualification (you are so special, not like the other girls), but again... Attraction has to come first, or you're just another guy trying to get in her pants, so none of that stuff has any value. Or if you do attract her and go for comfort but skip qualification, she may be afraid that she's just another conquest. (Skipping straight to "seduction": possible criminal charges.) Etc etc.
So it's very important to understand for single guys... But what is important to understand for men who are in a happy relationship or marriage and want to stay that way is: As the book put it, think of them not as goalposts to reach, but buckets that need to be filled, that have holes in them so they drain over time and you have to continually top them off.
PPS: Another implication of this way of thinking about it is: it's not about "manipulating" her; it's about understanding how to meet her emotional needs. Which is something that most guys aren't born with; most guys never understand, but they desperately need to, for their own wellbeing, as well as for that of their wives/girlfriends. So they need learn. But you can't learn just by listening to what women tell you, because we humans in general are bad at understanding what makes us tick.
You should read both books, you are wrong about a lot.
As I wrote above, feel free to correct me - please elaborate.
What I described is what I believe was the common understanding of these concepts in the community. What the books literally said is secondary to how the people within the community understood (or didn't). Sometimes concepts and ideas take a life on its own. If the public doesn't understand what the author truly wanted to say, it might have something to do with what the message is and how it's conveyed in the medium.
My main takeaway from reading the book (15 years ago) was that Strauss and Mystery were profoundly broken people, and the PUA scene was corrosive to their souls. They viewed women as objects.
All the PUAs in it were pathetic. They learned nothing about how to be adult men, to treat women as people rather than as objects to be used and discarded. They didn't understand maintaining a relationship, when they finally settled into one. There was zero in this book about anyone learning any self-awareness. I would sincerely like to know how you got that out of PUA culture, because it's mostly a group of manchildren.
I strongly recommend you read The Game. The seduction community leaves out the most important part -- at the end he realizes that most of what he's been learning is bullshit, and that most of the people in the community are toxic assholes. The key insight is that doing lots of approaches helped him develop his confidence and let go of his insecurities, but a lot of the other stuff was unnecessary.
Also, it's extremely well-written and has fun illustrations in it.
Strauss ghost wrote Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and it's outstanding as well.
This is interesting. Richard Heart learned mystery back in the day and there are some good daygame lessons from mr looks like Vigo on Youtube. I think it evolves and adapts overtime. grateful for the articles.
Здравствуйте, Петр (dzień dobry).
I have to give credit where credit is due, and I laud your honesty and thoroughness in these pieces, even if our perspectives are wholly different. You write what most people wouldn't dare to in today's high-temperature climate and the Sex Wars going on and all. I was a much more vicious in my attack on "peacocking" than you, but still, yes, it was very misguided.
I am writing on this now and would like to mention your series on this, but I wanted to run it by you. Can I quote you on some of this? We can discuss it further if you'd like.
Sure, feel free to quote.