The Arc of History – politicalbetting.com

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kyf_100 said:

darkage said:

You could look at it a different way.
Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'.
If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering.
No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women.
Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc.
Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing?
I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.

I'm inclined towards Houellebecq's answer, that it is "the law of market forces".

The dating market is the most capitalistic and selfish market there is - nobody wants to redistribute wealth in this market. There are a variety of things that make a person attractive - looks, physique, wealth, intelligence, sense of humour, style, youth etc. But each and every one of undeniably has a "sexual market value" based on these factors.

Now enter globalisation.

Up until about 2008, you largely met people through your social networks or your immediate surroundings. Social media didn't exist... you have to remember Facebook was limited to universities only until 2006 and the other stuff, instagram, tiktok, tinder, blah, didn't exist at all. So you'd go to a bar, meet through a college society, the young conservatives, a friend of the family, work colleague etc.

That all changed once our lives went online.

Consider an absolute stunner of a 21 year old girl. She's got model good looks and every man who meets her wants her. In 2005, she probably would have met people through uni, or at a bar, at her place of work, etc. Take out the oldies, the uglies the fatties etc - and she's probably got a dating pool of 1000 eligible bachelors in her town or wider social network to choose from.

Fast forward to 2022. All a beautiful 21 year old has to do is have access to an iphone and instagram and just by posting a few bikini shots, she can have 10,000 followers and premier league footballers in her DMs, if she's pretty enough.

Her sexual market value hasn't changed, but her access to an infinitely larger global sexual marketplace has.

This is very good for the attractive people of this world, but very bad for the unattractive ones. The attractive people have vastly more options at their disposal. The unattractive ones - well, are still unattractive, so many, many, many more rejections. It doesn't matter how many instagram selfies they post, they still get no interest.

We know that this is true of Tinder, if Tinder was a country it would have one of the highest gini coefficients in the world.

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

What all this means for society is, unfortunately, exactly what you'd get in any society where the resources are so unevenly distributed. You have an aristocracy with high sexual market value (through beauty, money, status etc) hoarding all the wealth, with an impoverished peasantry slowly starving to death.

All of which kind of ignores the fact that many men and women are attracted to each other for reasons other than their looks. Yes, in a nightclub or bar obviously the first thing that catches the eye is looks but it takes about 5 seconds actually talking with someone to realise that, whatever their superficial attractiveness, you sure as hell wouldn't want more than the briefest of flirtations.

This simple truth is proved by the fact that, in spite of the fact that 99% of us - whether male or female - are not 'stunners', the vast majority of us end up in romantic relationships that thankfully outlive the initial superficial attraction.

And again you totally miss the point. I’m not surprised you never got laid for years if you’re this obtuse

Internet dating. Dating apps

They make everything much more instant and visual. So the less good looking guys don’t even have a chance to pull. This is a real phenomenon and it is unquestionably bad for society. See all the incel shooters in the USA

And guess what, unless they are sad sacks like you, the vast majority of people do not use dating apps to get partners. They don't have to because they are able to actually interact with the opposite sex face to face rather than hiding behind a phone.
It is you who completely miss the point. You are the incel.

But this is simply and probably wrong (you fat clueless twat etc etc)

These days people meet via social media, very often dating apps. It’s absolutely standard

I wonder if I was one of the earliest PBers to meet a partner through the Internet? I met a GF through a bulletin board (Mono, if anyone remembers that) in 1992. Pre-WWW.

Way back in time, a year or two before the Tories last crashed the economy, I used a national newspaper's 'find love' service where you posted an entry which was printed in the weekend newspaper and then others wrote you a letter in response via the newspaper's PO box if they were interested in finding out more.

I got two or three dozen letters over the course of several weeks and they were all interesting and different and each represented a life and a person's hopes and dreams. I recall being staggered at some the detail of their lives that women sent me - a complete stranger. Some had photos, one had a cartoon sketch. Others just went for words.

The difference between this and the swipe right/left business phone app malarky is staggering imho.

It was a literary way of connecting which is at total odds with our video/snapshot age.

It's a lost world I guess.

I went on three dates in the end iirc. One of the issues was it was nationwide and the reality of meeting someone from Inverness for coffee was definitely a factor.

In the end, I met my wife face to face at a social club.

Leon said:

@Richard_Tyndall



You’re simply wrong

My understanding of dating apps (not that I have ever used one, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 30 years!) is that they are a real variety and many of the more successful ones like eHarmony are focused on personality matches not looks. Isn't tinder more about hooking up for casual sex than meeting your life partner? By definition if most relationships start via dating apps then most of those who use them successfully are probably a bit minging.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

@Richard_Tyndall



You’re simply wrong

My understanding of dating apps (not that I have ever used one, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 30 years!) is that they are a real variety and many of the more successful ones like eHarmony are focused on personality matches not looks. Isn't tinder more about hooking up for casual sex than meeting your life partner? By definition if most relationships start via dating apps then most of those who use them successfully are probably a bit minging.

This is beyond clueless

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

When he was Prince of Wales, King Charles had planned to speak on climate change at COP27. Now he is king, would it be appropriate for him to still do so?

All Britons: appropriate 49% / inappropriate 31%

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1576959509515235329?s=20&t=WQkBvNq6js4EFGebhofrPw

Using your past logic, a majority don't think it is appropriate for him to speak at COP27.

#TrussIsRight

A plurality do want him to speak, however Charles has followed Truss' advice, probably correctly and decided not to go.

At the moment however it is Truss who is more in need of a popularity boost than the King

Kings do not face elections or votes of confidence. You are really weak even in your chosen specialised subjects.

They don't but to sustain constitutional monarchy longer term you don't want a monarch who becomes too unpopular.

rottenborough said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kyf_100 said:

darkage said:

You could look at it a different way.
Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'.
If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering.
No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women.
Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc.
Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing?
I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.

I'm inclined towards Houellebecq's answer, that it is "the law of market forces".

The dating market is the most capitalistic and selfish market there is - nobody wants to redistribute wealth in this market. There are a variety of things that make a person attractive - looks, physique, wealth, intelligence, sense of humour, style, youth etc. But each and every one of undeniably has a "sexual market value" based on these factors.

Now enter globalisation.

Up until about 2008, you largely met people through your social networks or your immediate surroundings. Social media didn't exist... you have to remember Facebook was limited to universities only until 2006 and the other stuff, instagram, tiktok, tinder, blah, didn't exist at all. So you'd go to a bar, meet through a college society, the young conservatives, a friend of the family, work colleague etc.

That all changed once our lives went online.

Consider an absolute stunner of a 21 year old girl. She's got model good looks and every man who meets her wants her. In 2005, she probably would have met people through uni, or at a bar, at her place of work, etc. Take out the oldies, the uglies the fatties etc - and she's probably got a dating pool of 1000 eligible bachelors in her town or wider social network to choose from.

Fast forward to 2022. All a beautiful 21 year old has to do is have access to an iphone and instagram and just by posting a few bikini shots, she can have 10,000 followers and premier league footballers in her DMs, if she's pretty enough.

Her sexual market value hasn't changed, but her access to an infinitely larger global sexual marketplace has.

This is very good for the attractive people of this world, but very bad for the unattractive ones. The attractive people have vastly more options at their disposal. The unattractive ones - well, are still unattractive, so many, many, many more rejections. It doesn't matter how many instagram selfies they post, they still get no interest.

We know that this is true of Tinder, if Tinder was a country it would have one of the highest gini coefficients in the world.

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

What all this means for society is, unfortunately, exactly what you'd get in any society where the resources are so unevenly distributed. You have an aristocracy with high sexual market value (through beauty, money, status etc) hoarding all the wealth, with an impoverished peasantry slowly starving to death.

All of which kind of ignores the fact that many men and women are attracted to each other for reasons other than their looks. Yes, in a nightclub or bar obviously the first thing that catches the eye is looks but it takes about 5 seconds actually talking with someone to realise that, whatever their superficial attractiveness, you sure as hell wouldn't want more than the briefest of flirtations.

This simple truth is proved by the fact that, in spite of the fact that 99% of us - whether male or female - are not 'stunners', the vast majority of us end up in romantic relationships that thankfully outlive the initial superficial attraction.

And again you totally miss the point. I’m not surprised you never got laid for years if you’re this obtuse

Internet dating. Dating apps

They make everything much more instant and visual. So the less good looking guys don’t even have a chance to pull. This is a real phenomenon and it is unquestionably bad for society. See all the incel shooters in the USA

And guess what, unless they are sad sacks like you, the vast majority of people do not use dating apps to get partners. They don't have to because they are able to actually interact with the opposite sex face to face rather than hiding behind a phone.
It is you who completely miss the point. You are the incel.

But this is simply and probably wrong (you fat clueless twat etc etc)

These days people meet via social media, very often dating apps. It’s absolutely standard

I wonder if I was one of the earliest PBers to meet a partner through the Internet? I met a GF through a bulletin board (Mono, if anyone remembers that) in 1992. Pre-WWW.

Way back in time, a year or two before the Tories last crashed the economy, I used a national newspaper's 'find love' service where you posted an entry which was printed in the weekend newspaper and then others wrote you a letter in response via the newspaper's PO box if they were interested in finding out more.

I got two or three dozen letters over the course of several weeks and they were all interesting and different and each represented a life and a person's hopes and dreams. I recall being staggered at some the detail of their lives that women sent me - a complete stranger. Some had photos, one had a cartoon sketch. Others just went for words.

The difference between this and the swipe right/left business phone app malarky is staggering imho.

It was a literary way of connecting which is at total odds with our video/snapshot age.

It's a lost world I guess.

I went on three dates in the end iirc. One of the issues was it was nationwide and the reality of meeting someone from Inverness for coffee was definitely a factor.

In the end, I met my wife face to face at a social club.

What you describe is sort of what dating sites were like before the swiping element came along. It was actually about trying to get to know folk. But Tinder fucked it up for everyone else and the majority of them changed their format and setup to try and compete with that.

Leon said:

We have finally found a subject on which PB knows absolutely fuck all

Dating

Speak for yourself

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

We have finally found a subject on which PB knows absolutely fuck all

Dating

Indeed, that late, lamented SeanT used to boast about paying prostitutes, if you were as successful with the ladies as he claimed then that book of his was utter bollocks.

Tsk. I would never claim to be as notorious a swordsman as the much missed @SeanT

https://www.ft.com/content/29ebdd94-8c13-48fa-8718-4c86cce902a8

FT: Kwarteng to bring forward publication of fiscal plan and OBR forecasts. The plan sets out a five year agenda to bring down public sector debt through another lengthy bout of austerity.

Cameron and Osborne could get away with austerity (because they possessed some political acumen, had been laying the groundwork for years, and could pin the blame on the money markets and on Labour.) Truss and Kwarteng... won't.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Somebody who claims they’ve had 38 girlfriends is a liar

Nah, I know a few people with that many girlfriends, although some were concurrent...

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

The lack of sympathy is due to the fact most of these socially awkward young men are dicks that think they are owed sex.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

Here’s someone else who needs your sympathy.

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1576956213975056385
One branch chair tells me he ordered 10,000 leaflets five days ago boasting about the 45p rate abolition. They’re all in the bin now. His branch is definitely not happy.

It is so utterly catastrophic on multiple levels. It feels worse than the ERM debacle

That's because it is.

The ERM was Major being kicked by the markets. That's bad, PMs shouldn't look like a victim. But the culpability wasn't particularly Major's, despite the subsequent rewriting of history.

Kwateng donned a costume with "Kick me, markets" prominently printed on it. He then spent a week ignoring those around him saying "the markets are kicking you, and we're not going to benefit anyway. Are you sure about this?". Only then did he U-turn. Except it's only 2/45 of a U-turn anyway.

One of the rules of Conservatism is "understand why that silly thing is in place before you uproot it." Yes, Rishi's tax rises were and are rubbish. But better to think about why he thought them necessary than say "Conservative hate tax rises. Conservative smash tax rises."

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

@Richard_Tyndall



You’re simply wrong

My understanding of dating apps (not that I have ever used one, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 30 years!) is that they are a real variety and many of the more successful ones like eHarmony are focused on personality matches not looks. Isn't tinder more about hooking up for casual sex than meeting your life partner? By definition if most relationships start via dating apps then most of those who use them successfully are probably a bit minging.

This is beyond clueless

I may know nothing about dating but I can add up. It can't be simultaneously true that adding apps are both preventing most people from finding a partner and helping most people find a partner.

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Somebody who claims they’ve had 38 girlfriends is a liar

If you make it ‘women’ rather than ‘girlfriends’ it works.

Alleged women.

Leon is 83, so that’s only one girlfriend every two years, roughly, removing the years of minority.

IshmaelZ said:

Leon said:

We have finally found a subject on which PB knows absolutely fuck all

Dating

Bugger off, I have got laid in almost every decade since I turned 30.

What, just three times? You have my sympathy.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kyf_100 said:

darkage said:

You could look at it a different way.
Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'.
If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering.
No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women.
Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc.
Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing?
I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.

I'm inclined towards Houellebecq's answer, that it is "the law of market forces".

The dating market is the most capitalistic and selfish market there is - nobody wants to redistribute wealth in this market. There are a variety of things that make a person attractive - looks, physique, wealth, intelligence, sense of humour, style, youth etc. But each and every one of undeniably has a "sexual market value" based on these factors.

Now enter globalisation.

Up until about 2008, you largely met people through your social networks or your immediate surroundings. Social media didn't exist... you have to remember Facebook was limited to universities only until 2006 and the other stuff, instagram, tiktok, tinder, blah, didn't exist at all. So you'd go to a bar, meet through a college society, the young conservatives, a friend of the family, work colleague etc.

That all changed once our lives went online.

Consider an absolute stunner of a 21 year old girl. She's got model good looks and every man who meets her wants her. In 2005, she probably would have met people through uni, or at a bar, at her place of work, etc. Take out the oldies, the uglies the fatties etc - and she's probably got a dating pool of 1000 eligible bachelors in her town or wider social network to choose from.

Fast forward to 2022. All a beautiful 21 year old has to do is have access to an iphone and instagram and just by posting a few bikini shots, she can have 10,000 followers and premier league footballers in her DMs, if she's pretty enough.

Her sexual market value hasn't changed, but her access to an infinitely larger global sexual marketplace has.

This is very good for the attractive people of this world, but very bad for the unattractive ones. The attractive people have vastly more options at their disposal. The unattractive ones - well, are still unattractive, so many, many, many more rejections. It doesn't matter how many instagram selfies they post, they still get no interest.

We know that this is true of Tinder, if Tinder was a country it would have one of the highest gini coefficients in the world.

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

What all this means for society is, unfortunately, exactly what you'd get in any society where the resources are so unevenly distributed. You have an aristocracy with high sexual market value (through beauty, money, status etc) hoarding all the wealth, with an impoverished peasantry slowly starving to death.

All of which kind of ignores the fact that many men and women are attracted to each other for reasons other than their looks. Yes, in a nightclub or bar obviously the first thing that catches the eye is looks but it takes about 5 seconds actually talking with someone to realise that, whatever their superficial attractiveness, you sure as hell wouldn't want more than the briefest of flirtations.

This simple truth is proved by the fact that, in spite of the fact that 99% of us - whether male or female - are not 'stunners', the vast majority of us end up in romantic relationships that thankfully outlive the initial superficial attraction.

And again you totally miss the point. I’m not surprised you never got laid for years if you’re this obtuse

Internet dating. Dating apps

They make everything much more instant and visual. So the less good looking guys don’t even have a chance to pull. This is a real phenomenon and it is unquestionably bad for society. See all the incel shooters in the USA

And guess what, unless they are sad sacks like you, the vast majority of people do not use dating apps to get partners. They don't have to because they are able to actually interact with the opposite sex face to face rather than hiding behind a phone.
It is you who completely miss the point. You are the incel.

But this is simply and probably wrong (you fat clueless twat etc etc)

These days people meet via social media, very often dating apps. It’s absolutely standard

I wonder if I was one of the earliest PBers to meet a partner through the Internet? I met a GF through a bulletin board (Mono, if anyone remembers that) in 1992. Pre-WWW.

Mono was awesome at its peak. I never met a partner through it, but my sister did. (Genuinely true fact.)

eek said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

Here’s someone else who needs your sympathy.

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1576956213975056385
One branch chair tells me he ordered 10,000 leaflets five days ago boasting about the 45p rate abolition. They’re all in the bin now. His branch is definitely not happy.

It is so utterly catastrophic on multiple levels. It feels worse than the ERM debacle

That's because it is.

The ERM was Major being kicked by the markets. That's bad, PMs shouldn't look like a victim. But the culpability wasn't particularly Major's, despite the subsequent rewriting of history.

Kwateng donned a costume with "Kick me, markets" prominently printed on it. He then spent a week ignoring those around him saying "the markets are kicking you, and we're not going to benefit anyway. Are you sure about this?". Only then did he U-turn. Except it's only 2/45 of a U-turn anyway.

One of the rules of Conservatism is "understand why that silly thing is in place before you uproot it." Yes, Rishi's tax rises were and are rubbish. But better to think about why he thought them necessary than say "Conservative hate tax rises. Conservative smash tax rises."

Who on earth thought boasting about a tax cut for those earning £150,000+ was a good idea?

People who have spent too much time talking to the IEA and hangers-on, that's who.

I don't particularly believe the Tufton St conspiracy stuff, but sometimes you have to wonder.

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

Here’s someone else who needs your sympathy.

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1576956213975056385
One branch chair tells me he ordered 10,000 leaflets five days ago boasting about the 45p rate abolition. They’re all in the bin now. His branch is definitely not happy.

It is so utterly catastrophic on multiple levels. It feels worse than the ERM debacle

That's because it is.

The ERM was Major being kicked by the markets. That's bad, PMs shouldn't look like a victim. But the culpability wasn't particularly Major's, despite the subsequent rewriting of history.

Kwateng donned a costume with "Kick me, markets" prominently printed on it. He then spent a week ignoring those around him saying "the markets are kicking you, and we're not going to benefit anyway. Are you sure about this?". Only then did he U-turn. Except it's only 2/45 of a U-turn anyway.

One of the rules of Conservatism is "understand why that silly thing is in place before you uproot it." Yes, Rishi's tax rises were and are rubbish. But better to think about why he thought them necessary than say "Conservative hate tax rises. Conservative smash tax rises."

Yep. He has driven up interest rates faster than was necessary threatening even the modest growth we might have hoped for. The base rate rising to 5% will completely overwhelm the modest boost that the tax cuts will provide.

If this was deliberate, a strategy saying that ultra low interest rates had become part of the problem rather than a necessary support, I might have had some sympathy.
If he had argued that this is what it was going to take to get the genie of inflation back in the bottle I might even have agreed.

But what it seems to have been was pig ignorance ( I apologise to any pigs insulted by this analogy) and arrogance combined with a complete inability to foresee even the most basic and obvious consequences of his actions.
I despair, I really do.

At least we don't live in Burkina Faso where they seem to be having a coup every 5 minutes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-63111763

dixiedean said:

pigeon said:

https://www.ft.com/content/29ebdd94-8c13-48fa-8718-4c86cce902a8

FT: Kwarteng to bring forward publication of fiscal plan and OBR forecasts. The plan sets out a five year agenda to bring down public sector debt through another lengthy bout of austerity.

Cameron and Osborne could get away with austerity (because they possessed some political acumen, had been laying the groundwork for years, and could pin the blame on the money markets and on Labour.) Truss and Kwarteng... won't.

This Parliament was elected on a "no return to austerity" pledge.

Then Covid came along and the people, in their infinite wisdom, demanded lockdown.

Which @elonmusk do you like more? (poll)
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1577006943499350016

SandyRentool said:

Leon said:

We have finally found a subject on which PB knows absolutely fuck all

Dating

When you have to pay, it isn't really a date.

Ah, my friend, my dear kind PB friend: in the end we all pay, one way or another

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

Here’s someone else who needs your sympathy.

https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1576956213975056385
One branch chair tells me he ordered 10,000 leaflets five days ago boasting about the 45p rate abolition. They’re all in the bin now. His branch is definitely not happy.

It is so utterly catastrophic on multiple levels. It feels worse than the ERM debacle

That's because it is.

The ERM was Major being kicked by the markets. That's bad, PMs shouldn't look like a victim. But the culpability wasn't particularly Major's, despite the subsequent rewriting of history.

Kwateng donned a costume with "Kick me, markets" prominently printed on it. He then spent a week ignoring those around him saying "the markets are kicking you, and we're not going to benefit anyway. Are you sure about this?". Only then did he U-turn. Except it's only 2/45 of a U-turn anyway.

One of the rules of Conservatism is "understand why that silly thing is in place before you uproot it." Yes, Rishi's tax rises were and are rubbish. But better to think about why he thought them necessary than say "Conservative hate tax rises. Conservative smash tax rises."

I cannot be the only one who cannot quite believe just how incompetent and out of touch Truss and Kwarteng have been since taking office.

I also cannot quite believe just how terrible Truss is under media pressure. I knew she was awkward and suffered from a charisma bypass but there really does feel like there is something… odd about her. A politician that doesn’t appear to have the slightest clue what the public want, doesn’t seem to be interested in finding out, and seems utterly incapable of speaking to them on any kind of level.

It is almost as if the two have deliberately set out to destroy Tory poll ratings. I cannot think of anything more they could have done to appear out of touch and destroy their popularity or credibility. A nationwide puppy cull, perhaps.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

@Richard_Tyndall



You’re simply wrong

My understanding of dating apps (not that I have ever used one, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 30 years!) is that they are a real variety and many of the more successful ones like eHarmony are focused on personality matches not looks. Isn't tinder more about hooking up for casual sex than meeting your life partner? By definition if most relationships start via dating apps then most of those who use them successfully are probably a bit minging.

This is beyond clueless

I may know nothing about dating but I can add up. It can't be simultaneously true that adding apps are both preventing most people from finding a partner and helping most people find a partner.

They are increasing inequality. In a global sexual marketplace, with millions of participants, everyone is competing for the top 20% or so's attention. In a much smaller marketplace, everyone more or less finds their place - because eventually you run out of viable candidates.

With tinder, you can theoretically keep swiping forever until you meet your perfect match, the right match is only ever another swipe away. So people keep swiping.

Furthermore, for attractive people, easy access to unlimited matches disincentivises them settling down in the first place. So it may well be the case that the top 20% of people are having far more frequent casual sex, while the bottom 80% or so is hardly getting laid at all.

The raw data from the dating apps backs this up, as discussed here - https://archive.ph/JqVOC

The findings from Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid are summarised as thus:

"The great majority of women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men while most men are willing to communicate romantically with most women... It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true. Stated in another way, it seems that men collectively create a “dating economy” for women with relatively low inequality, while women collectively create a “dating economy” for men with very high inequality.

In terms of inequalities between attractive people (by times swiped) vs unattractive people, the gini coefficient for women is fairly average (men will swipe on most things, including average women) but the gini coefficient for men is equivalent to the 8th most unequal country in the world (women will only swipe on the very most attractive men).

The great thing about stats like those provided by the above article is they cut out all the *personal experience* of what it was like "in my day" or "for my lad, who's average looking" etc, and looks at the raw data of hundreds of thousands of users and millions of swipes.

And the data doesn't lie, here. The dating game is harder than it has ever been (for men at least) and the brutal truth is most men aren't getting sex, because most women simply don't find them attractive.

The study OKCupid publised using their own stats sets this out in absolutely brutal terms - women find very few men attractive, and rate almost all men as below average in attractiveness:

https://archive.ph/LDVFm

Another belting piece from John Harris, reporting from middle england heartlands once again. He is usually the must-read of the week.

"And so to one last rather overlooked point. As our economic troubles pile up, there is talk of renewed austerity: in her interview with Kuenssberg, Truss pointedly declined to rule out public spending cuts. She and her colleagues ought to bear in mind the words of the writer and academic Ross McKibbin, written in 1999 but every bit as relevant to 2022: “The middle classes make more use of the NHS, public transport, public libraries, local swimming pools, public parks and their right to state welfare than anyone else.” Therein we see one key aspect of the Tories’ snowballing crisis, and further proof of this surreal period’s defining political fact: that if Conservatives only seem able to bring to their own heartlands worry and despair, the game is surely up."


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/02/tories-liz-truss-plan-hit-middle-classes-betrayal

rottenborough said:

Another belting piece from John Harris, reporting from middle england heartlands once again. He is usually the must-read of the week.

"And so to one last rather overlooked point. As our economic troubles pile up, there is talk of renewed austerity: in her interview with Kuenssberg, Truss pointedly declined to rule out public spending cuts. She and her colleagues ought to bear in mind the words of the writer and academic Ross McKibbin, written in 1999 but every bit as relevant to 2022: “The middle classes make more use of the NHS, public transport, public libraries, local swimming pools, public parks and their right to state welfare than anyone else.” Therein we see one key aspect of the Tories’ snowballing crisis, and further proof of this surreal period’s defining political fact: that if Conservatives only seem able to bring to their own heartlands worry and despair, the game is surely up."


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/02/tories-liz-truss-plan-hit-middle-classes-betrayal

I enjoy reading his articles, but that doesn't change the fact that you can almost always guess what he's going to write before you read it.

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

@Richard_Tyndall



You’re simply wrong

My understanding of dating apps (not that I have ever used one, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 30 years!) is that they are a real variety and many of the more successful ones like eHarmony are focused on personality matches not looks. Isn't tinder more about hooking up for casual sex than meeting your life partner? By definition if most relationships start via dating apps then most of those who use them successfully are probably a bit minging.

This is beyond clueless

I may know nothing about dating but I can add up. It can't be simultaneously true that adding apps are both preventing most people from finding a partner and helping most people find a partner.

They are increasing inequality. In a global sexual marketplace, with millions of participants, everyone is competing for the top 20% or so's attention. In a much smaller marketplace, everyone more or less finds their place - because eventually you run out of viable candidates.

With tinder, you can theoretically keep swiping forever until you meet your perfect match, the right match is only ever another swipe away. So people keep swiping.

Furthermore, for attractive people, easy access to unlimited matches disincentivises them settling down in the first place. So it may well be the case that the top 20% of people are having far more frequent casual sex, while the bottom 80% or so is hardly getting laid at all.

The raw data from the dating apps backs this up, as discussed here - https://archive.ph/JqVOC

The findings from Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid are summarised as thus:

"The great majority of women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men while most men are willing to communicate romantically with most women... It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true. Stated in another way, it seems that men collectively create a “dating economy” for women with relatively low inequality, while women collectively create a “dating economy” for men with very high inequality.

In terms of inequalities between attractive people (by times swiped) vs unattractive people, the gini coefficient for women is fairly average (men will swipe on most things, including average women) but the gini coefficient for men is equivalent to the 8th most unequal country in the world (women will only swipe on the very most attractive men).

The great thing about stats like those provided by the above article is they cut out all the *personal experience* of what it was like "in my day" or "for my lad, who's average looking" etc, and looks at the raw data of hundreds of thousands of users and millions of swipes.

And the data doesn't lie, here. The dating game is harder than it has ever been (for men at least) and the brutal truth is most men aren't getting sex, because most women simply don't find them attractive.

The study OKCupid publised using their own stats sets this out in absolutely brutal terms - women find very few men attractive, and rate almost all men as below average in attractiveness:

https://archive.ph/LDVFm

Don't you go blinding PBers with actual data. We have @Richard_Tyndall here, who once had fumbling bad sex in the 1980s, to tell us what's what. And @Foxy is a doctor so he knows things about things

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

The lack of sympathy is due to the fact most of these socially awkward young men are dicks that think they are owed sex.

Perhaps you'd feel different if it was your son?

I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"

No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!

I have a son not a daughter he just turned 30 today and he would echo my views he knows these sort of people and his comment would be "Well if they weren't complete arseholes who do things like take a girl out then tell her she owes them sex as they paid for the date then...."

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

The lack of sympathy is due to the fact most of these socially awkward young men are dicks that think they are owed sex.

Perhaps you'd feel different if it was your son?

I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"

No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!

As a father of daughters the way you talk about women is like a teenage boy going through puberty. I think you’re full of shit

Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. But on this occasion I can politely inform you that you are factually wrong. And you can disbelieve that, if you prefer fiction as the facts make you uncomfortable

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

@Richard_Tyndall



You’re simply wrong

My understanding of dating apps (not that I have ever used one, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 30 years!) is that they are a real variety and many of the more successful ones like eHarmony are focused on personality matches not looks. Isn't tinder more about hooking up for casual sex than meeting your life partner? By definition if most relationships start via dating apps then most of those who use them successfully are probably a bit minging.

This is beyond clueless

I may know nothing about dating but I can add up. It can't be simultaneously true that adding apps are both preventing most people from finding a partner and helping most people find a partner.

They are increasing inequality. In a global sexual marketplace, with millions of participants, everyone is competing for the top 20% or so's attention. In a much smaller marketplace, everyone more or less finds their place - because eventually you run out of viable candidates.

With tinder, you can theoretically keep swiping forever until you meet your perfect match, the right match is only ever another swipe away. So people keep swiping.

Furthermore, for attractive people, easy access to unlimited matches disincentivises them settling down in the first place. So it may well be the case that the top 20% of people are having far more frequent casual sex, while the bottom 80% or so is hardly getting laid at all.

The raw data from the dating apps backs this up, as discussed here - https://archive.ph/JqVOC

The findings from Tinder, Hinge and OkCupid are summarised as thus:

"The great majority of women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men while most men are willing to communicate romantically with most women... It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true. Stated in another way, it seems that men collectively create a “dating economy” for women with relatively low inequality, while women collectively create a “dating economy” for men with very high inequality.

In terms of inequalities between attractive people (by times swiped) vs unattractive people, the gini coefficient for women is fairly average (men will swipe on most things, including average women) but the gini coefficient for men is equivalent to the 8th most unequal country in the world (women will only swipe on the very most attractive men).

The great thing about stats like those provided by the above article is they cut out all the *personal experience* of what it was like "in my day" or "for my lad, who's average looking" etc, and looks at the raw data of hundreds of thousands of users and millions of swipes.

And the data doesn't lie, here. The dating game is harder than it has ever been (for men at least) and the brutal truth is most men aren't getting sex, because most women simply don't find them attractive.

The study OKCupid publised using their own stats sets this out in absolutely brutal terms - women find very few men attractive, and rate almost all men as below average in attractiveness:

https://archive.ph/LDVFm

Don't you go blinding PBers with actual data. We have @Richard_Tyndall here, who once had fumbling bad sex in the 1980s, to tell us what's what. And @Foxy is a doctor so he knows things about things

Bad sex? Did he compare her to a Sony Walkman?

She was more lovely and more temperate.

I'll Tape your word for it.

Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
·
2h
BREAKING:

Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.

It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.

As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.

for bit of partisan balance, again courtesy of the Gray Lady . . .

NYT ($) - Democrats’ Troubles in Nevada Are a Microcosm of Nationwide Headwinds
Inflation and a rocky economy are bolstering Republicans in their races against incumbent Democrats, motivating “an electorate that simply wants change,” as one G.O.P. consultant says.

LAS VEGAS — The Culinary Workers Union members who are knocking on doors to get out the vote are on the cursed-at front lines of the Democratic Party’s midterm battle.

Most voters do not open their doors. And when some do answer, the canvassers might wish they hadn’t.

“You think I am going to vote for those Democrats after all they’ve done to ruin the economy?” a voter shouted one evening last week from her entryway in a working-class neighborhood of East Las Vegas.

Miguel Gonzalez, a 55-year-old chef who described himself as a conservative Christian who has voted for Republicans for most of his life, was more polite but no more convinced. “I don’t agree with anything Democrats are doing at all,” he said after taking a fistful of fliers from the union canvassers. . . .

Democrats in Nevada are facing potential losses up and down the ballot in November and bracing for a seismic shift that could help Republicans win control of both houses of Congress. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto remains one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country. Gov. Steve Sisolak is fighting his most formidable challenger yet. And the state’s three House Democrats could all lose their seats.

The Democratic juggernaut built by former Senator Harry M. Reid is on its heels, staring down the most significant spate of losses in more than a decade.

The party had in recent years relied on the state’s changing demographics, capitalizing on the workers who flocked there in search of an attainable path to middle-class dreams. But Nevada Democrats are learning that demographics alone are not destiny. The state’s transient population has made building a reliable base of voters difficult, with would-be voters leaving in search of work elsewhere, as more children of immigrants in the state reach voting age. And with Mr. Reid’s death last year, Democrats are missing the veteran leader who never hesitated to twist arms to get donors and activists on board.

The vulnerabilities in Nevada reflect Democrats’ challenges nationwide, most acutely in the West. Worries over inflation and the economy overshadow nearly every other concern, particularly for the working-class and Latino voters the party has long counted on. And Republicans believe that voters blame the Democrats in power for the dour economic outlook. . .

SSI - Democratic electoral difficulties in the Silver State in 2022 being exacerbated by cack-handed congressional gerrymander engineered by . . . wait for it . . . the Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/us/politics/nevada-elections-democrats-republicans.html

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

There are a lot - I mean a LOT - of retarded seeming 20-something males.

I don’t blame the girls for steering clear.

The lack of sympathy on this site for socially awkward young men is really quite repulsive

The lack of sympathy is due to the fact most of these socially awkward young men are dicks that think they are owed sex.

Perhaps you'd feel different if it was your son?

I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"

No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!

I have a son not a daughter he just turned 30 today and he would echo my views he knows these sort of people and his comment would be "Well if they weren't complete arseholes who do things like take a girl out then tell her she owes them sex as they paid for the date then...."

I don't think there's any doubt that there's a small sub-set of men who have developed a warped sense of reality and do exactly that, and for which they should be rightly smacked upside the head.

But they are no more representative of the entire possible cohort than saying "all Tories are scum" or "all Labour voters are lefty wokists" or whatever lazy broad brush statements folk make. There's much more nuance to the debate than that.

Elon Musk is having a massive stramash online about his plan for world peace


"You are assuming that I wish to be popular. I don’t care.

I do care that millions of people may die needlessly for an essentially identical outcome."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576995429094285313?s=20&t=8q2aHOiRH-4ik2jI-GJZew


More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close

PeterM said:

Leon said:

Elon Musk is having a massive stramash online about his plan for world peace


"You are assuming that I wish to be popular. I don’t care.

I do care that millions of people may die needlessly for an essentially identical outcome."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576995429094285313?s=20&t=8q2aHOiRH-4ik2jI-GJZew


More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close

yes i think Putin is about to start seriously testing the waters here...this nuclear test may be a first step in the hope to him that it panics the west...he is a dangerous cornered rat

Yes, Putin is surely going to do *something* - because he has to. His army is being routed here and now, the mobilisation has come too late

I'm kinda praying it's "just" biological or chemical, or a test explosion over water

BBC breaking news — government to bring debt plan forward from November.

IshmaelZ said:

Cyclefree said:

I am just dropping in. Is anyone discussing Iran? Or what it means to realise that universal human rights are not in fact universal? Or indeed the courage of women in such countries, courage few of us would be able to replicate?

Or are we back to @Leon's views on sex and why young men are not getting enough of it? And that this is all women's fault for not wanting to be pawed by men they don't like? Again.

Self-importance verging on Get professional help now, levels. Nobody is obliged by law to read your essays, you have been told a thousand times to self-edit or actually get edited to make them readable and you just won't listen, and yes we were talking about techniques for removing feminine underwear with one's teeth.

Have a nice evening.

Calm it down @IshmaelZ

rottenborough said:

Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
·
2h
BREAKING:

Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.

It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.

As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.

Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?

Andy_JS said:

BBC breaking news — government to bring debt plan forward from November.

But didn't they insist that they wouldn't just the other day?

Can we trust anything that they say?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Cookie said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kyf_100 said:

darkage said:

You could look at it a different way.
Incel (involuntarily celibate) is a subset of 'men who are just celibate'.
If dealing with women becomes too difficult and risky, then they could just decide to stop bothering.
No one is forcing men to have sex and go in to relationships with women.
Particularly now that you have pornography, virtual reality etc.
Perhaps it will get to the point where men adopt children, etc, in the way that single women sometimes give birth by IVF etc. Would this be such a bad thing?
I am not saying that this is a healthy state of affairs, but it could be where the current phase of the 'sexual revolution' is leading to.

I'm inclined towards Houellebecq's answer, that it is "the law of market forces".

The dating market is the most capitalistic and selfish market there is - nobody wants to redistribute wealth in this market. There are a variety of things that make a person attractive - looks, physique, wealth, intelligence, sense of humour, style, youth etc. But each and every one of undeniably has a "sexual market value" based on these factors.

Now enter globalisation.

Up until about 2008, you largely met people through your social networks or your immediate surroundings. Social media didn't exist... you have to remember Facebook was limited to universities only until 2006 and the other stuff, instagram, tiktok, tinder, blah, didn't exist at all. So you'd go to a bar, meet through a college society, the young conservatives, a friend of the family, work colleague etc.

That all changed once our lives went online.

Consider an absolute stunner of a 21 year old girl. She's got model good looks and every man who meets her wants her. In 2005, she probably would have met people through uni, or at a bar, at her place of work, etc. Take out the oldies, the uglies the fatties etc - and she's probably got a dating pool of 1000 eligible bachelors in her town or wider social network to choose from.

Fast forward to 2022. All a beautiful 21 year old has to do is have access to an iphone and instagram and just by posting a few bikini shots, she can have 10,000 followers and premier league footballers in her DMs, if she's pretty enough.

Her sexual market value hasn't changed, but her access to an infinitely larger global sexual marketplace has.

This is very good for the attractive people of this world, but very bad for the unattractive ones. The attractive people have vastly more options at their disposal. The unattractive ones - well, are still unattractive, so many, many, many more rejections. It doesn't matter how many instagram selfies they post, they still get no interest.

We know that this is true of Tinder, if Tinder was a country it would have one of the highest gini coefficients in the world.

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

What all this means for society is, unfortunately, exactly what you'd get in any society where the resources are so unevenly distributed. You have an aristocracy with high sexual market value (through beauty, money, status etc) hoarding all the wealth, with an impoverished peasantry slowly starving to death.

All of which kind of ignores the fact that many men and women are attracted to each other for reasons other than their looks. Yes, in a nightclub or bar obviously the first thing that catches the eye is looks but it takes about 5 seconds actually talking with someone to realise that, whatever their superficial attractiveness, you sure as hell wouldn't want more than the briefest of flirtations.

This simple truth is proved by the fact that, in spite of the fact that 99% of us - whether male or female - are not 'stunners', the vast majority of us end up in romantic relationships that thankfully outlive the initial superficial attraction.

And again you totally miss the point. I’m not surprised you never got laid for years if you’re this obtuse

Internet dating. Dating apps

They make everything much more instant and visual. So the less good looking guys don’t even have a chance to pull. This is a real phenomenon and it is unquestionably bad for society. See all the incel shooters in the USA

And guess what, unless they are sad sacks like you, the vast majority of people do not use dating apps to get partners. They don't have to because they are able to actually interact with the opposite sex face to face rather than hiding behind a phone.
It is you who completely miss the point. You are the incel.

Is thay true any more - that yhe vast majority of people don't use dating apps to get partners?

Certainly looks to be that way from all the stats. Not least because, taking Tinder as an example, in 2021 89% of all Tinder users were male and only 9% female. Unless there are a hell of a lot of gangbangs going on that is not a recipe for a majority of dates being by online dating.

Edit. The other stat I find amusing is that 42% of all Tinder users in the UK are already married or in a 'steady' relationship.

To be fair, I suspect that other dating apps don't skew so male. Tinder, after all, being "who wants a shag", rather than "who wants a serious relationship".

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

wooliedyed said:

Westminster Voting Intention (2 Oct):

Labour 52% (+6)
Conservative 24% (-5)
Liberal Democrat 10% (-3)
Green 5% (+1)
SNP 5% (+2)
Reform UK 3% (-1)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 28-29 Sept

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…

Whoops

Lead below 30 points.

Conference bounce for Truss?

Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠

Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.

There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.

Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.

Fickle anti-Tory voters wanting to back the winning team / shifting to Labour?

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:

Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
·
2h
BREAKING:

Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.

It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.

As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.

Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?

No

Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.

Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.

Thanks. I should have known but didn't.

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Gardenwalker said:

My advice for 20 year old “socially akwards” is to focus on your career, and some suitably outdoorsy hobbies, and return to the “market” at 30.

The market winnows pretty quickly.

That's good advice. My advice for socially awkward 20 year olds (and I was one as well, in a way), is to listen more than talk, and be nice. Don't lie to impress, as they'll discover the truth soon enough.

And whatever you do, do not follow *any* of the advice in "Millions of Women are Waiting to Meet You"

My memory is vague, but doesn’t the author of that book end up having quite a lot of sex with a large number of women? ie in the hundreds, albeit not millions?

Might all be lies of course - probably is - but if true it suggests his advice is not all bad

And is he happy and in a committed relationship?