The Book of Numbers: Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women

Citation preview

THE BOOK OF NUMBERS: Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women By Aaron Clarey

To Charlie, Craig, Ben, Adam, Youngblood, and Alexei who knew all too well what the ROI was long before I calculated it.

Copyright © 2020 by Aaron Clarey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Aaron Clarey,” at the e-mail address below. [email protected] Please e-mail any typos or errors to [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – THE QUESTION CHAPTER 2 – THE ASSUMPTIONS CHAPTER 3 – THE MODEL NOTE ON CHAPTERS 4-6 CHAPTER 4 – THE CHANCES: THE PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO ARE MARRIAGEABLE CHAPTER 5 – THE CHANCES: THE PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO WILL MARRY “AVERAGE JOE 5” CHAPTER 6 – THE CHANCES: THE PERCENT CHANCE YOUR MARRIAGE WILL BE A HAPPY ONE CHAPTER 7 – THE CHANCES: REAL WORLD NUMBERS CHAPTER 8 – THE COSTS CHAPTER 9 – THE ROI CHAPTER 10 – THE STRATEGY ONLINE MODEL AND DOWNLOADABLE CHARTS FOR AUDIBLE LISTENERS VISIT THE AUTHOR! OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR Research, Data, and Resources:

CHAPTER 1 – THE QUESTION A Libertarian in Minneapolis Allow me to tell you the odd origins of how this essay came into existence. It was the early 2000’s and like any other 20-something man I wanted to get laid. I was in Minneapolis at the time and it was the pre-social media/pre-COVID culture to meet girls at bars, nightclubs, dance halls, etc. However, due to the harsh and long Minnesota winters, house parties were also very common in the Minneapolis dating scene. You’d show up with a bottle of booze, perhaps toss a couple bucks to the host, and you were let in to enjoy a night of 90’s music, potluck booze, painfully mindless 20-something conversations, and mingling with the local lovelies. And though I was no Cary Grant, I was charming and charismatic enough that over an evening I would score some numbers, land some dates, and once every blue moon get laid. The problem, however, was this was Minneapolis. And if you knew anything about Minneapolis culture (let alone 20-something Minneapolis culture) it was that it was completely leftist, completely biased, and so thoroughly so that absolutely no quarter or consideration was given to anybody who was not a democrat. This mindset was so universal it was more of a cult than one’s mere political belief, and so pervasive it affected all young Minneapolitans’ minds in complete totality. And so being libertarian I knew to keep my mouth shut, avoid talking about politics, just smile, and agree with that cute, well-endowed redhead that, yes, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we just had free everything.” Unfortunately, there was this one prick in the house-party-going community. I never figured out who he was, and had it nailed down

to a handful of suspects, but regardless of the man’s true identity, he knew I was NOT a leftist, a liberal, or a democrat. And just as soon as I was making good progress with a young lady, or even starting to become too popular at the party, it would somehow be leaked that I was (gasp!) “a republican!” And now instead of wooing a cute redhead from Edina to come check out my sweet bachelor pad replete with a 5 disk CD player, I had a whole house of hostile 20something Minneapolitans arguing against me, calling me a nazi, wondering why I hated black people because I voted for George W. Bush. As you could imagine, this didn’t bode well for my chances to woo cute redheads back to my place. Matter of fact, things would become almost downright hostile because anybody who is a republican is obviously for slavery, hates the Jews, and is a misogynist (in spite of me trying to explain I was, in fact, a libertarian). But regardless of how baseless these accusations were, it didn’t change the fact that I was the libertarian bump that would knock the party’s needle off of the record. The libertarian turd in the party’s punch bowl. And if I didn’t want to be blacklisted from any future parties, I would have to come up with some kind of contingency plan the next time I was accused of being (gasp!) a republican (even though I was...once again...a libertarian). Thankfully, I did have one trick up my sleeve, and that was I was an economist. And in being an economist, I naively figured that if I could just prove to people empirically that I was right or at least had my arguments supported by data, they would respect my opinions, leave me alone, allowing me to preemptively and quickly quell any political arguments before they started. The party would continue uninterrupted, I may even score some intellectual points along the way, but most importantly I would be able to return to my pursuit of well-endowed redheads. And so this being the early 00’s I would burn some key economic statistics and charts to a CD, and should any political argument come up, I would simply put the CD into a

computer, pull up the data, and “poof” – argument ended! Now let’s get back to partying and drinking! This did not go as well as first hoped. First, computers from the early 00’s took a while to fire up, throwing off the cadence and thus killing the mood of the party. Second, even though I’d cite my data, people wouldn’t believe my figures anyway. But above all else, third, people couldn’t believe some schmuck brought a CD full of economic charts and data to a house party. And though ironically these CD’s did have the intended effect of stopping political debates in their track, it had the equally bad effect of officially making me the party’s weirdo. That was until 2004. Because in 2004 I heard about this new website called “Blogger.” And what blogger allowed you to do was write and post data on this relatively new and burgeoning thing called “The Internet.” And while at the time I was still in awe of CD-burning technology, it dawned on me that if I had my own “blog” I could have some key data and statistics conveniently and readily available on the internet, allowing me to ditch the awkward CD’s that made me look like the party weirdo. To this extent the idea actually kind of worked. A blog was less jarring to the rhythm of the party than some schmuck whipping out a CD saying “See I have charts!” Blogs also lent some kind of air of authority to the data I was presenting as I was viewed more as a “professional” with “research” on “his website” than some CD-totting weirdo. And though this blog did have its intended effect of politely assuaging political disagreements at parties, it had a secondary unintended effect. It became my official blog – “Captain Capitalism” – which sent me down the career path I have today. I Created a Monster

The blog itself had its own organic evolution. Because it’s original purpose was to host economic data, it become a depository for key and important economic charts. This then morphed into more complex analyses and treatises on economics and politics. And soon it became a rather established economics site for professionals or anyone interested in economics or politics. But over the early years of my blog I realized two key things: One, I could post the most compelling, conclusive, empirical data, couched within the most succinct, clear, eloquent writing and people still wouldn’t believe it. I realized humans absolutely do not care about the truth and believe in only what they want to believe. So all that time I spent compiling data, making charts, running correlations, etc., was essentially wasted because it was falling on deaf (and willfully ignorant) ears. Two, posts I wrote where economics overlapped with topics that were more social or culturally popular were more popularly read. Especially when you started talking about the sexes. And so whereas my economic analysis was nothing short of brilliant on topics such as: “Calculating Inflation without the Velocity of the M2 Money Supply” or “Substituting Dividends for Earnings as the True Measure of Cash Flow in the Valuation of Stocks” I would easily get 5 times the readers and traffic on topics such as: “The $750,000 Opportunity Cost of Paying for Her Wedding” or “Prostitution is $435,000 Cheaper Than Marriage” This pulled my research, as well as my interests, towards where the sexes and economics met. It also pulled in more readers as the topics were saucier and sexier. And while it did somewhat abandon what would be considered “classical, traditional economics” in

exchange for something more “pop economics,” I didn’t mind this cheap trick as nobody was taking my original economic work seriously anyway. Furthermore, there was very little economic research done on the sizable field where economics and sex overlapped, which made these topics much more interesting and intellectually stimulating. Still, this change resulted in one of the most common complaints of my blog and remains so today – that I “no longer write about economics like I used to, and all you do is talk about girls, marriage, and dating.” Which is somewhat partially true. However, the switch from boring classical economics to the new “sexy” economics wasn’t a conscious choice. It happened quite naturally, even unconsciously. And it never felt like I left economics behind to write middle school girl slop a la a Conde Nast publication. Economic theory and economic analysis was still being used in my work, though the topic had changed. But it wouldn’t be until my blog was 10 years old would I have an incredibly important epiphany. An epiphany that made me realize I never abandoned serious economic work in the first place. Because while the focus of my blog did switch from things such as “deficits as a percent of GDP” to “how much more strippers make than liberal arts majors,” I realized something most economists didn’t – nearly all of economics is about sex. And for once at least one economist was studying the right thing. Economics is Sex To prove this, take a moment to look out your window. Take in everything you see in your purview. The buildings, the roads, the electrical lines, the cars, the plane in the sky, the landscaped grounds, the window you’re looking through itself. EVERYTHING you see, except for perhaps the sky itself, has been touched by human hands. Human labor has been expended in one way or another to shape, form, and create nearly all that is in your view. However, this amazing mural of economic production didn’t happen

by itself. Houses and cars and planes and vaccines didn’t just – “POOF” – form in a vacuum. There had to be a reason for all this economic production to spring into existence. And the reason it did was sex. It is here we must accept an inconvenient truth of nature. Specifically, that nature has shaped the male and female sexes into having very specific roles so that the human race might survive and thrive. Nature gave women the ability to birth children, as well as the breasts to feed them. While nature gave men the physical strength, aggression, and mass to not only provide for their women and children, but protect them as well. However, nature also provided the sexes with something that would prevent them from overpopulating - lopsided sex drives. Men have sex drives (estimated to be) 9 times that of women, while women...do not. And this lopsidedness prevents everybody from breeding kids they can’t afford because if women had the same sex drives as men the human race would out-breed its food supply in a week. But there is also an ancillary benefit to such mismatched sex drives. Because in forcing men to meet the finicky and higher standards women require to have sex, it forces them into an evolutionary arms race of perpetual competition and self-improvement. And thank god for society it does, because without that powerful sex drive and the commensurate work ethic that comes with it, absolutely NOTHING you see today would exist. This massive, nearly incomprehensible economic miracle you are witnessing outside your window is due to one group of people and one group of people only – men. And it was a transaction (the most important and original economic transaction) that incentivized men to make and build nearly everything on the planet - sex for resources. Men build things, women give them sex. Men produce things, women give them children. Men accrue wealth and resources, women continue their genetic line. Sex (or more Darwinistically speaking, progeny) is what gets men out of bed in the morning, off to school, into rush hour, off to the office, off to the factory, off to night

school, off to war, or off to the lab to make money so that they might someday attract girls. If there was no sex, if there were no women, if there was no female youth and beauty, men would still be living in caves, only mustering their resources to perhaps create beer and poker to bide the time. Alas, the ONLY reason you have planes, trains, and automobiles, the only reason an economy exists, the only reason anything outside the sky exists, is because men built it. And men built it in exchange for sex. Now admittedly, this economic relationship between the sexes has drastically changed over the past 60 years. Feminism, technology, capitalism, and government policy have upended traditional male and female roles, completely obsoleting them in some cases. Technology and capitalism has made it that physical strength is no longer required to work, as much as it is intelligence or a skill, opening up the labor market to women. Feminism has encouraged these advancements making it legally as well as socially acceptable for women to work, own their own property, support themselves, even form their own families as men no longer have a monopoly on economic production. And government policy (at least within the first world) has completely replaced men as the ultimate provider for women and children with the welfare state. But these past 60 years of sociology doesn't undo 2 million years of biological programming. Additionally, these newly formed independent roles do not undo history. And so the men of today are just as genetically compelled to be the primary engine of economic growth, industry, and innovation as their forefathers were. And so whether it's 2020 A.D. or 2020 B.C., sex still drives nearly all men to spend their lives in the pursuit of it, predominantly in the capacity of work. Unfortunately, this results in another inconvenient and politically incorrect truth – that men are going to continue being the dominant producers and innovators of the economy. Men are going to continue to be the wealthiest and most financially successful of the sexes. And until women have the same sex drives as men (heh) the wage gap between men and women will continue. But for all the

enviable privileges and benefits that come with being male, there is an unseen, but equal cost that comes with it. Because for every ounce of production, wealth, and riches men have, there is an equal and opposite price men must pay. For every ear of corn grown, there was an hour of time tilling the fields. For every car welded, a bead of sweat from the welder. For every bridge built, 4 years of youth spent studying calculus, physics, and civil engineering. Down to every penny of GDP there is a specific caloric expenditure of labor. And when you tally up all this effort, the price men pay for sex is nothing short of “their entire lives.” So, yes, men may have created nearly everything you see in the world today, but the price they paid was everything. This then behooves an important question – is it worth it? Is the pursuit of women and sex worth the complete and total price men must pay? Furthermore, and more importantly, does this economic transaction make sense today in light of what the past 60 years has done to traditional gender roles? Because while the price men are required to pay hasn't changed, what they get in return definitely has. For better or worse, at one time a man could be reasonably assured his wife would not divorce him, “take him for half,” or destroy his family. He wouldn't have to compete against a multi-trillion dollar government to be considered an adequate financial suitor. He would also have his wife's undivided attention invested in himself and children, instead of divided across her career, her education, her politics, or her Eat, Pray, Love midlife crisis. And he was somewhat guaranteed his wife would remain somewhat svelte or physically attractive, as opposed to the morbidly obese people we have today. And that's just marriage. This says nothing about dating, courting, or the actual pursuit of women. And here what was once considered the “fun” part of courtship has now become a painful, even risky chore. Feminism

has warped young women's attitudes towards men to such an extent men are viewed as competitors at best, sworn enemies at worst. This attitude has also replaced the traditional and cooperative loving relationship between men and women with a victim-oppressor mindset, ruining dating with the politics of distrust. Men get to face an increasingly threatening environment where things like false rape accusations or “sperm jacking” are all too real. And do not even ask what perverse and warping effects social media has had on dating. Whatever traditional accord men and women had with each other is now irreparably broken, with its benefits replaced by incredible financial, legal, emotional, and psychological risks. Yet the price men must pay still remains the same – everything. And thus the point of this essay. To date no serious economic analysis has been conducted on what is nothing short of the most important economic question facing men. And since men will likely account for the majority of economic production and technical innovation in the future, this also makes it the most important economic question facing the world. However, while the economic ramifications of men's pursuit of women are truly global, this essay has no grandiose ideas of convincing the world, let alone the economics profession, about the importance of whether it's in men's best interests to continue this pursuit. It only cares about the individual man reading this essay and whether the pursuit of women is personally worth it to him. In that regard this essay aims to inform the reader about the real mathematical chances of success he faces in the pursuit of women, as well as the modern day risks, so that he may make an informed economic decision as to how he best invests his life. It also aims to align the reader's expectations with reality so his life is not ruined by delusion or hope, both of which have ruined millions of lives in the past. But in short, this essay is nothing less than the most important cost-benefit analysis any man will read, which makes it mandatory reading for any man who wishes to take his life seriously.

And I most certainly hope you do because you only get one of them.

CHAPTER 2 – THE ASSUMPTIONS In full intellectual honesty and disclosure I do not believe in the social sciences or sociological studies. I think the fields are completely bunk and bogus, and are more of a welfare jobs program for unemployable hacks who have political agendas rather than any serious study into society with the goal of helping - let alone resolving - the sociological problems that plague it. If there was any veracity in the social sciences, we would have solved poverty, crime, divorce, racial/sexual gaps, unemployment, etc., long ago, and the fact these scourges continue to exist – and are in most cases, worsening – is proof enough these “fields” are of no value, perhaps even damaging to society. However, this study is not so much sociological as it is actuarial. It may be sociological in nature, and it certainly pulls from a myriad of social science studies, but it makes no claims or attempts to “solve” a problem or explain whatever social phenomenon we are witnessing. It is merely a statistical analysis to assess the chances and risks involved with the largest economic investment men are going to make with their lives. Additionally, this study is the first of its kind. And in being so has no lofty goals of measuring things down to the decimal point, calculating whether “Steve” will get laid that particular night, or whether “Bob” is going to get divorced that month. It merely aims to introduce numbers and statistics to a very important economic decision where there were none before. Therefore, this study claims to be nothing more than a first attempt, a prototypical effort, replete with all the inherent weaknesses, drawbacks, errors, and flaws that plague not only pioneering studies, but the social sciences as well. With that disclaimer the following assumptions/declarations are made:

Best Effort – This essay represents a best effort to assess the risks and rewards men face when engaging in the pursuit of women, not a perfect effort. The model, the assumptions, the decisions, and the calculations were all made in intellectual honesty, with the goal of trying to assess these risks and rewards as accurately as possible. No doubt there are errors, mistakes, and flaws in this study, but this is more of a function of a lack of data, lack of better statistical/mathematical tools, and the pioneering nature of this study. Flight of the Phoenix – As per the movie, this study works with what it's got, not what it would like. There were several instances where a particular data set would have been ideal for running calculations, but simply didn't exist. This resulted in having to extrapolate data from other data sets/studies, infer data from other data sources, forecast trends, and resort to unscientific polling methods fraught with statistical errors. And while the model is believed to be sound, there is no doubt better data could be fed into it to improve its accuracy. Ballpark Estimate – Consequently, this study does not make any claims to be statistically valid by actuarial or professional statistical standards. It only aims to be in the ballpark, giving men some ballpark figures where there were none before. A rough tool to gauge risk and return as opposed to none at all. Still, do not worry. The model used in this study is just as accurate as any COVID or global warming model in use today, which should make it unquestionably valid in many people's minds. Outside Confirmation – Though a first effort, the results of the model and different scenarios we ran using the model were surprisingly corroborated by anecdotal evidence and real world phenomenon. Of particular note was the 1 in 100 women that are marriageable based on informal sampling, especially those men who were serial daters, dating in excess of 100 women. This doesn't mean this model is 100% reliable, proven to accurately predict

everything in a man's love life. But it does seem to meet the low “ballpark figures” hurdle set forth for this study. Time/Inter-Generational Distortions – As this study defines “success” as “happily married” there are problems applying marriage statistics to the single men and women of today. Namely, marriage (successful or not) is a long process, and to assess success rates of marriages requires going back 30, 40, even 50 years. This means we are applying Boomer, even Silent Generation marriage statistics to Gen Z and younger generations who are of course in a completely different sociological, romantic, dating, political, and economic environment. Further complicating matters is the increase in cohabitation, which is neither single nor married, and the data of which is not consistently measured. A best effort attempt was made to accurately and logically account for these factors as much as possible, as well as erring on the side of caution. Literal Interpretation of Data – This study deals with populations in the hundreds of millions, making scores of assumptions, over the course of decades. This results in some interesting statistics as well as some confusing concepts. It behooves the reader to CLEARLY read and understand the title and descriptions of these statistics so you know what these statistics do and do not measure. Where applicable a real world translation or example is made to help the reader better understand these numbers, but it can still be confusing. Analyzed from Male Perspective – This study is intended to be for men and for the benefit of men, and in being so really gives no consideration to women. Additionally, in being written for men, the tone of this essay is expeditiously blunt, direct, and curt, allowing for no misinterpretation of the data or wasting precious time beating around the bush. This may cause umbrage or offense, even accusations of sexism, but that is not the intent of this book. It is simply written for a male audience. That being said, a separate study on the pursuit of men is being conducted and in intellectual honesty the numbers are equally damning of men. Regardless,

women are certainly welcome to read this study, but would probably benefit more from the future publication analyzing the ROI of the pursuit of men. “Average Joe 5” – In order to draw some concrete numbers and conclusions, some assumptions had to be made about the men these statistics apply to. And since men's success with women is heavily dependent on variables such as height, income, weight, and looks, for the sake of simplicity and to apply to the widest range of men possible, we assumed in every scenario the male subject would be average. This introduces the concept of “Average Joe 5” who is average in every way. He is of average height, average income, average status, average education, and average looks. Some scenarios will be ran in “The Strategy” chapter of this book to show men what would happen to your chances if you were an “8” or made “$100,000,” but nearly all the analysis in this book has been conducted with your average American male in mind. 18-35 Year Old Demographic – As men's pursuit of women is primarily and genetically concerned with fertility in the form of female youth and beauty, this study focuses exclusively on women between 18-35 - the age range where women can legally marry up to the point they start to lose their physical beauty and fertility. Not all of the data on women perfectly aligned with the 18-35 age cohort, but best approximations were made when possible. Additionally, while all men are no doubt interested in women between 18-35, this study is more intended for younger men who have yet to marry, generally assumed to be 45 and younger. For men who are older than 45, already married, already divorced, or just have no interest in women this study is intended to be more of an academic or intellectual pursuit rather than an instructional one. Traditional Marriage/Happily Married – While men's interest in women can range from a simple date to having a harem of women, “success” is defined in this study as a traditional marriage, where both spouses are happily married. While this does simplify the

analysis by clearly stating an objective goal, measuring “happily married” is nearly impossible. Still, this study defines success as finding a woman, getting married (or cohabitating), and being happily married till death do somebody part, not “getting laid on Friday” or “getting her number.” Doesn't Consider Chemistry or Personality – Without reading ahead, it will probably shock no one that the numbers are already dire. Personal experiences, anecdotes, all of which have been shared by billions of men over the internet for the past 20 years has unscientifically formed most men's opinion about this matter. But it is even worse when you consider this study does not consider the required personality or chemistry to fall in love. In other words, this study likely presents a “best case” scenario to be further pared down with the unquantifiable variables of love, romance, personality, and chemistry. However, just as this study does not consider these intangible variables, it is certainly possible personality, chemistry, and love can overcome the cold, callous statistics and assumptions in this study. For example it is possible for politically misaligned people to fall in love and have a happy marriage. It is also possible for a rich woman to fall in love with a poor man. It's not likely, but if the Vikings can win a Superbowl, anything can happen, and this study acknowledges that possibility. Actuarial Audit – An actuary was hired to audit this study to ensure its accuracy and integrity. The actuary was also employed to conduct additional statistical analyses, specifically as it came to backing out the co-correlation that exists between different “deal breakers” that would preclude women from being marriage material (obesity, debt, mental illness, etc.). This was all done to ensure the veracity of this study. Criticisms Welcomed, But - All constructive criticisms, critiques, and objections are welcomed, but they will only be heeded under two conditions. One, there is an actual flaw or error you'd like to correct, not something you merely dislike or politically disagree with. And

two, you provide the data to remedy that error. As stated before there are indeed gaping flaws and errors in this study, but it was usually due to a lack of data. And these flaws cannot be fixed without data. Many hours were spent searching for data that simply didn't exist, but if you happen to have such data or better data, it would be greatly appreciated. All Statistics are Wrong – It is guaranteed that the numbers presented in this essay are not the actual numbers in the real world. No statistical study is 100% accurate, meaning all statistics are wrong. However, these numbers are not meant to be taken as the bible, but rather ballpark approximations to help men calculate the ROI of the pursuit of women. Do not read too much into them or over-analyze them. Use them more as guidelines.

CHAPTER 3 – THE MODEL “ROI” or “return on investment” is a simple financial concept. You take the profits an investment generates and divide it by the cost of that investment. A simple comparison of “what you're going to pay” versus “what you're going to get.” So if you have a bond that pays $5 a year in interest and it costs $100 for that bond, your ROI is: $5/$100 = 5%. This then allows you to decide whether a 5% rate of return is worth the investment of your $100. Again, a simple comparison of what you're going to pay versus what you're going to get. However, when it comes to the pursuit of women, what you're going to pay versus what you're going to get gets a little more complicated. So complicated in fact this is what the original formula used to calculate the ROI on women looks like:

Further complicating matters is terminology and definitions. What defines “return?” What defines “success?” Is it having sex with more women than the average man? Is it dating hundreds of women? Is it getting married and managing to be one out of every two men who don't get divorced? What if you're married, but completely miserable? And this also says nothing of costs.

How do we measure the price you pay to pursue women? Is it only your explicit cash outlays? What about time? Have you ever paid a mental or emotional price pursuing women? Do psychologist bills count? And what about opportunity cost? What could you have done with your life had you not spent your entire 20's buying girls dinners on dates or drinks at night clubs? It's very easy to look up the price of a bond and the interest it pays on the Wall Street Journal. It's not so easy doing a cost benefit analysis on the pursuit of women. To that end we need to define two things. One, the terms we're using to define things like “success” and “costs” so that we may do a cost benefit analysis. And two, the formula or “model” we're using to calculate “what you're going to pay” and “what you're going to get” when it comes to calculating the ROI of women. And though certainly there may be some academic disagreement on both, it's at least a starting point and gives us a model to work with.

Definitions “What You're Gonna Get” - aka - “Success,” “Benefits,” or “Profit” “Success” in this study will be considered to be the traditional measure of romantic success throughout human history - “happily married.” This could be in the form of a traditional marriage, cohabitation, or any form of committed relationship. But to be “successful” according to this study you must be committed to a relationship and happy in it. The reason for choosing “happily married” is because this is what most men have invariably wanted over the course of human history. Certainly modern day sociological fads such as polyamorous relationships or 31 flavors of genders

have entered the realm of human relationships, but we are going to focus on what 2 million years of evolution has defined as “success,” not what is politically popular on college campuses this week. It is assumed you want a traditional marriage, where you marry the woman you love, stay married, and are happy in that marriage, hopefully until death does somebody part.

“What You're Gonna Pay” - aka - “Costs,” “Price,” or “Investment” “Costs” in this study will be defined as ALL resources men use in the pursuit of women. This is a comprehensive and theoretical definition, but it simply aims to measure “what price will men have paid in all forms of resources had they not been pursuing women.” In this sense, it is a classical “with vs. without” comparison of your “Average Joe 5” versus a confirmed bachelor, where one guy expends the normal amount of effort any man would pursuing women, versus a theoretical man who had no interest in women at all. Since there are various forms of resources (time, money, energy, sanity, etc.) there are going to be various measures of “costs” which will allow for their own individual insights and analyses. But they will become increasingly amorphous as you cannot put a financial price tag on things such as “stress,” “emotion,” “suffering,” or “confusion.” These intangible forms of “costs” will not allow for economic analyses of the ROI of the pursuit of women, but will prove incredibly useful in subjective ones. The Model Though the model above looks like chaos and chicken scratch, in all that chaos and chicken scratch the simple formula for calculating the ROI of women remains the same - what you're going to pay versus what you're going to get. And as long as you don't make it more

complicated than that, you will be able to follow along and assess whether the pursuit of women is worth the investment. Still, a simplified overview of the model above will prove useful in understanding the statistics and methodology of this study. Furthermore, in understanding the individual-calculations that have gone into the overall calculations of this study, you will be able to more precisely understand what does and does not increase your chances of success with women, translating the chaotic chicken scratch above into specific actions you can take in your life to improve your chances with women. To that end, the model can be broken down into those same two, classical pieces of the ROI formula; “What You're Going to Get” and “What You're Going to Pay.” Model Part 1 - “What You're Going to Get” Since “success” is defined as “happily married” the first part of the formula focuses on the chances your “Average Joe 5” will be happily married. Keep in mind “what you're going to get” is NOT MARRIAGE. And it certainly is NOT a HAPPY MARRIAGE. It is the chance you will be happily married. This is an incredibly important distinction to make because what you are really doing in pursuing women is more akin to playing the lottery than a guaranteed investment. If you pursue women you are NOT guaranteed of being happily married. Just like a lottery ticket, you are merely guaranteed to have a chance at being happily married. And so the model focuses on those chances. Specifically, the model does this by looking at three sub variables that go into calculating the overall chances you will have a successful marriage: 1. The supply or “percent” of women that are marriageable.

2. The percent chance said women will want to marry you in return 3. The percent chance that marriage will not end up in divorce or misery, but a happy one We then take the percent chance you will find a marriageable woman, multiply that by the chances this woman will in turn want to marry you, and finally filter it through the wringer of marriage/divorce to see if your marriage will achieve the status of life-long marital bliss. Simplifying the above, the first part of the model looks like this: This will be reviewed in Chapters 4-6 of the book.

Model Part 2 – “What You're Going to Pay” With the “benefits” of the pursuit of women calculated we can now move onto the second part of the formula - the total cost men can

expect to incur in this pursuit. This is broken down into three subcategories of costs, resulting in a total cost figure.

“Explicit Costs” are your actual financial expenses men will incur in their pursuit of women. This includes common things such as dates, drinks, dating services, etc., but also includes often unforeseen-butno-less-real costs. Things like divorce settlements, alimony, increased housing costs, increased car costs, unnecessary schooling, wedding rings, weddings, even bailing out their theoretical fiancée of her student loans for her “Sociology” degree. This may be the narrowest measure of the price men pay, but it still is a significant price.

“Opportunity Costs” are what men passed up on had they invested the money and/or time mentioned above into other things. This could be additional education, more hours at the office, an entrepreneurial venture, the S&P 500, or even something as simple as leisure. And though the mind can fantasize about investing in “Bitcoin” or “Tesla” in 2005, simply ask yourself how much you would have today had you invested all the money you spent chasing girls into a boring ole S&P 500 mutual fund instead. Admittedly, this is a theoretical cost, but the money would have gone somewhere else had you not spent it chasing women, making it a very real cost. “Intangible Costs” are all the undefinable costs men pay in their pursuit of women. Though not tangible, nor measurable they are nevertheless very real. The mental pain and agony when you get stood up or divorced. The arguing or fighting that comes with the mandatory bipolar girl every man is seemingly doomed to date at least once nowadays. Thinking you're mentally ill when you were just dating a psychopath. Hours of nagging or being denied sex in a “happy marriage.” Even something as simple as the torture of feigning interest in what a woman has to say only because you want to get laid. A numerical price cannot be put on the time, effort, emotion, or sanity these men are never getting back, but it was a price paid nonetheless. When you add these three costs you get a total cost – aka “the price you're going to pay” - to pursue women. And though with the inclusion of “intangible costs” we cannot put a financial price tag on it, analyzing each of these sub-costs will help immensely in calculating the ROI of the pursuit of women from both a mathematical and subjective perspective. This will be covered in more detail in Chapter 8 of the book. The Bottom Line – ROI

With both the costs and benefits of pursuing women calculated, it is merely a simple matter of dividing the benefits by the costs to determine your ROI. Because of the various and intangible measures of both, you will have many estimates for the ROI of the pursuit of women, none of which are right or wrong. But understand they are numbers where there were none before, and we now have the ability to run “worst, expected, and best” case scenarios. This is an infinite improvement over what men had before to make this ultimate economic decision in the past, which was nothing.

NOTE ON CHAPTERS 4-6 As described in Chapter 3, the three underlying statistics used to determine the percent chance of you being happily married were: The percent of the female population that is marriage material The percent of those women willing to marry you (as defined as “Average Joe 5”), and The percent chance this marriage would remain a happy one. However, since a fair amount of detail and minutiae has gone into each of these underlying calculations, a separate chapter will be dedicated to explaining each of them, how they were derived, and the underlying assumptions behind them. Therefore, Chapters 4 - 6 will be: Chapter 4 – The Percent of Women Who Are Marriageable Chapter 5 – The Percent of Women Who Want to Marry an Average Man Chapter 6 – The Percent Chance Your Marriage Will Be a Happy One Keep in mind this only covers the first half of the formula, with cost calculations being covered in Chapter 8. So to avoid confusion and be able to follow the math you may want to reference this “Map of the Model” as we go along.

CHAPTER 4 – THE CHANCES: THE PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO ARE MARRIAGEABLE If you have tried dating in the past 25 years you know that it has not only been difficult, but increasingly so. And while many people (both men and women) may date for fun, inevitably the majority of people date with the end goal of marriage and perhaps forming a family. But while men's and women's biological drives compel them towards this evolutionary goal, society in a bevy of ways has delayed, postponed, even outright obstructed men and women from achieving this goal. This has come in the form of making college an unnecessary condition of employment, crippling young people with student debt so they can't afford a family, indoctrinating young women to put more value on their careers and education than men/children/family/love, obesity that has rendered 70% of people physically revolting, and a war of the sexes that makes cancer seem friendly. Both sexes - women for men and men for women - have been ruined for each other by society, resulting in abysmally few people who are marriage material. And you didn't need a study to tell you that. But how do you measure “marriage material?” How do you determine whether a woman is of high enough caliber to marry? And what traits would you consider to make this judgment? There are no correct answers, but this study employs three methods to estimate the percent of the female population that is marriageable: 1. The “Deal Breaker “ Method 2. The “Online Dating Profile Survey” Method 3. The “Dates Per Marriage” Method

An average of all three will then be used for this piece of the ROI puzzle. Method #1 – The “Deal Breaker” Method The “Deal Breaker Method” attempts to measure (based on surveys, polling, and other data) what percent of the American female population has no major deal breakers. What qualifies as a “deal breaker” is certainly up for debate. Loudly smacking her chewinggum may be considered a deal breaker for some, but not at the same level as say a woman with herpes. So to determine what were critical deal breakers that would indeed disqualify a woman from being marriage material we had to focus on critical flaws that were not merely unlikable, but would make a happy marriage an impossibility. And while no doubt this list could be unlimited, we focused on 8 deal breakers deemed to be the most poignant, comprehensive, and relevant to the success of a happy marriage, as well as the interests of men. #1 Obesity/Being Overweight Despite what fat acceptance “activists” and an increasing percent of American women want to believe, being big is not beautiful. It is disgusting. It's gross. It's physically revolting. And as it just so happens it's unhealthy. But more importantly, as it pertains to whether a woman is marriage material, it immediately destroys the number one thing men seek in women – physical beauty. And though women may howl at the moon and claim that a man should love a woman for who she is on the inside, we already have a name for women we like, but just aren't physically attracted to - “friends.” Regardless, since physical beauty is a must, this eliminates the 59.6% of young American women who are obese or overweight as marriage material. Certainly, yes, many men are fat themselves. And yes many men marry fat women, have wives who get fat on them, or even manage to have kids with them. But remember the

definition of “success” in this study is happily married and you simply cannot be happily married to someone you're not physically attracted to. #2 Worthless Degrees While the world celebrates that there are now more women in college than men, nobody has bothered to ask whether it's for something sensible like Accounting or a colossal waste of time like the Liberal Arts. And when you consider whether the degrees women are getting are worthwhile or merely an excuse to attend a very expensive 4 year party, unfortunately 80.5% of the time it's an excuse to party. However, it is not so much the degree itself that excludes women from being marriage material as it is what it comprehensively says about them. First, it's a declaration as to how realistic and serious women are about their careers, their professions, and their work ethic. Yes, it would be nice to solve poverty, but usually when a young woman majors in the social sciences it's to avoid real work or rigor, at minimum a delusion to “follow her heart and the money will follow.” You WILL be subsidizing her life as she simply lacks the education and skills to command a self-supporting wage. Second, there are HUGE financial consequences for majoring in the wrong thing. Namely, the tonnage of student debt she's incurred and unable to pay off, making her a HUGE financial liability for any future suitor. Third, many of these worthless degrees are simply rank indoctrination, brainwashing women to value their careers, politics, feminism, educations, etc., above love, which is simply antithetical to marriage. If you marry someone with a “Genders Studies” degree they are not going to be a loving supporting wife, but likely an obstinate, nagging shrew that loves her cultish politics and career more than you or your children. This isn't to say a nice, sweet girl who's majoring in education to become an elementary school teacher is going to be some nagging,

confrontational harpy. Nor is it to say that every girl goes to college (only 72.5% of women do). But it is to use women's choice of majors as a proxy as to where their priorities in life lie, how realistic they are about finances, how realistic they are about life, as well as the chances they will be a political, financial, or even emotional liability to your marriage. * The data for worthless degrees was calculated using the NCES data for all bachelor degrees conferred in 2018. Every degree that did not have an obvious job or profession attached to it, or were notoriously underpaid professions (education, sociology, etc.) or were typically unaccredited degrees that target poor/disadvantaged groups of students (criminal justice, culinary school, etc.), were deemed worthless. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_318.30.asp #3 Percent Financially Delinquent As financial problems are cited as the number one cause of divorce, finding a woman who has her financial act together is a must. Furthermore, a woman who cannot pay her bills on time is simply not mature enough to marry. And while no doubt young women today have the added financial pressures of student loans for completely unemployable degrees, no self-respecting man can marry a woman who doesn't pay her bills, or worse, is one of the 6% who declares bankruptcy, upgrading themselves to thieves. Using “ever delinquent” as the metric in a Federal Reserve study to determine fiscal responsibility, 31.6% of women between the ages of 18-35 have been late at least once paying back their debts. Men are only a few percentage points better, but nearly 1 in every 3 women of marrying age have finances that are prohibitive to marriage. This leaves roughly only 2/3rds of women fiscally responsible, and presumably responsible enough to marry.

Data was an average between two age cohorts from 21-30 and 3140. The study can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/genderrelated-differences-in-credit-use-and-credit-scores-20180622.htm #4 Leftist/Socialist/Feminist Politics While one could make the argument (and be right) that leftist or feminist politics shouldn't be considered a deal breaker (there are democrat men after all), leftist politics are considered a deal-breaker in that they play a role in young women's lives today that goes beyond mere government policy, to that of a political-ideological cult that renders many of them unmarriageable. In the 1960's when your mother or grandmother, even your curmudgeonly grandfather would vote democrat, it was usually to nobly “help out the little guy” or to perhaps reel in the powers of corporate America. And whether you agreed with them or not, it was to exercise their right to vote and do their part to make America as great as it could be. But for whatever reason they voted democrat it wasn't because they solely valued themselves as “democrats” or derived some kind of life purpose and meaning from it. They were a “housewife” or “plumber” first, who happened to vote for JFK. But today left-leaning politics, and certainly feminism is not about giving the little guy a break or something as mundane as balancing the budget. It has become a substitute for purpose, meaning, value, even love in many young women's lives today. So much so many young women will simply refuse to date non-leftists as a matter of policy, screaming “SWIPE LEFT IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN!!!!” (when, in fact, you might be a libertarian). This makes politics (like other things) a higher priority in leftist women's lives than love. And to truly fall in love (let alone be happily married), you need to put the other person ahead of yourself, and that includes your cultish politics. But worse, this unhealthy obsession with politics, as well as abusing it as a substitute for

purpose in life, has many young women flirting with mental illness where they literally hate you because you dare advocate lower taxes or refuse to use made up pronouns. Therefore, it is not the political positions of the democrat party, socialism, or feminism per se that makes these women unmarriageable, but the fact they put it at the center of their lives that render them so. And though this ideological obsession provides left-leaning men a HUGE statistical advantage when it comes to dating (as 65% of young women identify as “democrat” or “feminist”), it will forever sow a seed of doubt as to whether your leftist wife loves you or her politics more. #5 Single Moms This variable is very simple. Men don't like raising other men's children. Men are genetically repulsed by other men's genes. Men are also not kosher with being the #2 guy in a woman's life, let alone playing second fiddle to some other guy's kid. And unless the woman was a widow, being a single mom is indicative of poor decision making in the past. Admittedly, if you're an older man you may not have the luxury to pine for, let alone, hold out for a childless woman. Over time most women will have children and with a 50% divorce rate single moms are an inevitability in every middle-aged man's life. But since this study focuses on younger men who are yet to be married, as well as young women who are not at menopause's door, it is perfectly reasonable and self-respecting to demand your future wife not have another man's kid. Unfortunately, what you want and what you're going to get are two different things as nearly 40% of single women between the ages of 18-35 are single moms. Worse, the better looking a woman is the higher percent chance she has a kid in tow (this phenomenon was particularly noticeable when surveying online dating profiles in rural areas). The fact is, whether you like it or not, beautiful women attract handsome men and the result is children. Sometimes these people

stay married, sometimes they don't, sometimes they were never married at all. But the end result is the average young man today is looking at a dating pool where 4 in every 10 women have some other guy's kid. #6 STD's STD's present an interesting problem. What is considered an STD? Is it HPV which nearly half the population will get, yet for the most part is asymptomatic? Is it a death sentence like AIDS? What if it's curable like gonorrhea or chlamydia? What if it's not like herpes? It's hard to pin down what a “deal breaking STD” is. Furthermore, there are complications when it comes to measuring an STD rate among young women. For instance, the data just doesn't exist for the specific age cohort we're interested in. Different diseases come and go in waves over generations making a stable, usable number an impossibility. And a significant percent of the female population has multiple STD's. There is frankly no way to apply a specific number to the percent of women who have a marriage-disqualifying STD. Therefore, for the purposes of this study a “marriage-disqualifying STD” was conservatively defined as whether a woman had herpes or not. There are certainly some shortcomings in using this metric, but having herpes is a pretty applicable standard when it comes to marriageability. Most men will adamantly refuse to marry (let alone sleep with) a woman who knowingly has herpes. Herpes is not curable. And there's enough social stigma associated with the disease it's a death knell to your dating life and, consequently, your chances of marriage. A shocking 25% of women are estimated by the CDC to have herpes (though the vast majority of these women are asymptomatic). And remember, that's just one STD. The percent of women with deal breaking STD's is likely higher. #7 - Mental Illness

Like STD's mental illness also presents a measuring and statistical problem. Do you consider women who ever had a mental illness? Do you only consider women who are chronically mentally ill? Do you consider something serious and permanent like schizophrenia? What about something as minor as dyslexia? Does the suite of “designer mental illnesses” Millennials popularized to get attention in high school count? What about ADHD or “social anxiety disorder?” And who cares if she's faking being bipolar for attention. Isn't that in itself a deal breaker for most men? Like STD's, an assumption had to be made to simplify the math and just get us into the ballpark. This assumption was that the 25% of women who are on antidepressants are a reflective (though low end) estimate of the overall population of women who are mentally ill to the point they are unqualified to be wives. #8 - Body Mutilation The final deal breaker was body mutilation. Like STD's and mental illness, this was also amorphous and intangible. However, mutilating one's body is a pretty clear sign of several things. Mental illness. Bad decision making skills. Immaturity. Financial instability. A lack of purpose and meaning in life. And conformity (especially among women from 18-35). Additionally, physically marring your body not only ruins the number one thing men seek in women (beauty), but can also be visually identified, making it an easily identifiable red flag for any serious seeker of marriage. But like other metrics, what qualifies as “bodily mutilation?” Is the discreet Chinese proverb tattoo nearly every 20 something girl has a sign of mental illness? Are the “tramp stamps” nearly every Gen X woman got the same? And what if she was a military vet and got the tattoo with her unit in Iraq? Therefore, for the purposes of this study “body mutilation” was considered somebody who had 4 or more tattoos. Non-traditional piercings or other forms of body mutilation

(ear gauges for example) were not considered, largely because there isn't enough data about the female population that has them. But there is research (see below) showing the more tattoos women have, the more mentally unstable they are, rendering them for the purpose of this analysis, unmarriageable. Nearly 1 in 6 (15.3%) of the female population is estimated to have 4+ tattoos. * Studies/sources for reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6347139/ https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/southjersey/2018/07/17/national-tattoo-day-south-jersey-show-ustattoos/791417002/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-poll-tattoos-arent-just-forrebels-anymore https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1440783318755017 https://medium.com/daliaresearch/who-has-the-most-tattoos-its-notwho-you-d-expect-1d5ffff660f8 https://www.reference.com/world-view/statistics-body-piercingf5db4efae39e98ef https://blog.bodyjewelry.com/statistics-of-body-piercings-in-the-u-s/ Backing Out Dependence/Co-Correlation and Finalizing the Number When you tally up the numbers above you get the following statistics:

And while you may be tempted to merely multiply these variables together to get the remaining percent of the female population without a major deal breaker (which would result in .54% - roughly one-half of one percent of the female population), this number is misleading because of the co-correlation between these 8 deal breakers. For example, it may shock you to find out that a feminist with a worthless degree might also... have 4+ tattoos have financial problems be on antidepressants and also be fat. This results in a Venn diagram where one woman can account for several of these traits, overstating the percent of the female population that is unmarriageable and understating the percent of the female population that is.

To account for this overlap two statistical methods were employed to back out this cocorrelation. These methods resulted in two estimates of the marriageable population - 1.1% and 1.4% - averaging to around 1.25%.

This adjusted number is the finalized number we will be using for Method #1 in calculating the percent of marriageable women – 1.25%. Method #2 – The “Online Dating Profile Survey” Method

To get the second number used to measure what percent of the female population was marriageable a more direct route was taken. I merely borrowed my friend's Match.com account and went through 900 profiles of women, asking the simple question: “Does she have any major deal breakers?” These 900 profiles were sampled over three states and within each state further divided across city, suburb, and rural zip codes at 100 samples each. The three states/major metros were: Dallas, Texas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Denver, Colorado So using Texas as an example, 100 profiles were sampled from “Dallas,” 100 profiles sampled from “Plano” (a suburb), and 100 profiles sampled from “Van Horn” (rural). This methodology was repeated in Minnesota and Colorado as well. Simple and direct as this method may have been, it was not without its challenges. First, most online dating services or “apps” do not have those same 8 deal breakers conveniently listed on a woman's dating profile. This required spending HOURS pouring over the details, reading hundreds of individual profiles to see if there were any deal breakers. Second, online profiles are not totally disclosing, meaning just because she didn't mention prescription meds didn't mean she wasn't mentally ill. This means this method likely understates the number of women with deal breakers, and thus overstates the percent of marriageable women. Third, women put in an amazing amount of trickery and deception when it comes to their pictures. Blurry pictures. Pictures from far away. Pictures where she's wearing sun glasses so you can't see her face. Pictures where she's in a group of women making it impossible to tell who she is. Some women didn't even post pictures at all, but instead pictures of

landscapes or painfully stupid calligraphic sayings. And the amount of close-up facial shots, pictures from 1996, or outright photoshop jobs was appalling. It was assumed that any kind of trickery when it came to pictures was merely a fat woman trying to hide the fact she was fat, resulting in a hard no in the analysis. Still, one week and 900 profiles later, the results were very eye opening about the world of online dating. Apparently all children of single moms not only “come first,” but are also all “amazing.” Surprisingly there are no average or stupid kids in America. Only “amazing.” Nearly every girl likes to travel, despite the unpleasant chore we all know traveling to be. A lot of women are “done playing games” and “ready to settle down” which when translated into English means, “We're not having any of that fun, frivolous sex I gave to all the previous fellas.” Nearly everyone is a “fur momma” to a “fur baby.” For some women (notably in Texas) Jesus is not just “merely important” but “soooooper important.” Most women are bi-lingual as they are fluent in “Sarcasm.” And a good percent of women are apparently criminals because they're all looking for their “partner in crime.” Still, out of all the clichéd and banal dating profiles there were 50 quite admirable women who had no obvious deal breakers. And (at least on paper) looked to be of marriage material. These 50 women accounted for 5.4% of the 900 profiles surveyed. This is the finalized number for Method #2 in calculating the percent of marriageable women – 5.4% *It should be noted that this 5.4% figure likely overstates the percent of marriageable women in that not all deal breakers can be ascertained in a mere dating profile.

* It is acknowledged that Match.com is only one dating site and more modern dating sites/apps are in use. Notably Bumble and Tinder. However, these apps have very limited data on their profiles as each profile must fit on a phone screen. * It is also acknowledged that online dating is not the only source for dates. One can meet a girl in public. However, especially under COVID, nearly all dating is done online today, especially for the age demographic of 18-35. Therefore Match.com is assumed to be reasonably representative of the true dating market men face today. Method #3 – The “Dates Per Marriage” Method The third method used to estimate the percent of marriageable women is actually quite simple. It simply asks how many women men date before they marry. You take the number of wives men have had, divided it by the total number of women they've dated, and that should give us a rough approximation of the percent of women men deem marriageable. There were several problems with this measure. First, the polling was highly unscientific, fraught with selection bias and other common polling errors (additional data on this would be tremendously helpful in improving this study). Second, this ratio most certainly overstates the percent of marriageable women in that men have presumably already selected for beauty when asking women on dates, not randomly asking out random girls in public regardless of their physical appearance. However, third, this is ameliorated by the fact this measure does not account for the instances where the man wanted to get married, but the woman did not, yet still resulted in a date (note – this effect also affects women, which will be addressed later). Fourth, the distribution was bimodal where the majority of men had dated 10 or less women before marrying, though the mean average was brought up significantly by “serial daters” - men who had dated in excess of 100 women.

When the total amount of dates was divided by the total amount of marriages, the average man will date 67 women in their life before marrying, implying only 1.5% of women are deemed marriageable by men. And while an argument could certainly be made to back out the “serial daters,” the serial daters are nonetheless part of the dating community, plus they technically have statistically sampled those women. Furthermore, various dating sites, dating coaches, as well as serial daters themselves have anecdotally reported a rule of thumb of only 1 in every 100 women being marriageable, roughly corroborating the data above. Still, it is acknowledged that if we considered a median number of dates instead of the mean, this number would be significantly higher, but for the sake of analysis we will stick with the 1.5%. This is the finalized number for Method #3 in calculating the percent of marriageable women – 1.5%. The Final Number for the Percent of Women Who are Marriageable Taking the three estimates from the three methods: The “Deal Breaker “ Method The “Online Dating Profile Survey” Method The “Dates Per Marriage” Method 1.5%

1.25% 5.4%

we get a simple average of 2.72%, or 1 in every 37 American women do not have a major deal breaker. This 2.72% is the first of three variables we will need to calculate the percent chance you will be happily married – aka - “What You're Going to Get.”

CHAPTER 5 – THE CHANCES: THE PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO WILL MARRY “AVERAGE JOE 5” With the percent of the female population that is marriageable calculated we now need to consider whether any of these girls would want to marry you. However, “you” are an individual man. You could be a really tall, good-looking fella. Or you could be some fat, short, ugly NEET living in his mom's basement. Here we employ our theoretical friend “Average Joe 5” so that we can not only run some statistics, but apply these statistics to the widest group of men possible. The methodology used to calculate the percent of women who want to marry the average guy breaks down into three sub-calculations or variables: “The Spinster at 35 Ratio” The Percent of Women Willing to Date “Average Joe 5,” and The Number of Men Women Date Before Marrying (the exact same “Dates per Marriage” calculation we did for men in Chapter 4) The logic behind this is that we first need to remove the percent of women who have no interest in marrying (thus “The Spinster Ratio”). And the women who remain will then need to both want to date and ultimately marry you to be considered in this statistic. This then results in the percent chance your average woman will end up dating, and ultimately marrying, “Average Joe 5.” The “Spinster at 35 Ratio”

If you look at polling data nearly every woman claims she wants to get married. But here it's important to distinguish between what women say and what they do. Because though nearly 100% of women say they want to get married, what happens in effect is that only about 70% of them do by 35. Therefore, the remaining 30% who do not marry by 35 need to be backed out from this calculation because (though some women certainly do marry after 35) most men don't have an interest in them after that age, removing these women from the marriage market. This means that right off the bat we lose 30% of women, forming a baseline of 70%. However, even this is likely an overestimate as this trend is worsening. The original data used for this calculation came from this site: https://flowingdata.com/2017/11/01/who-is-married-by-now/ which showed only 26% of women at 35 were never married. However this data was from 2015. More recent surveys (cited below) show between 30-35% of women never marrying by 35. Also, according to the study “The SHEconomy” by Morgan Stanley, they expect the percent of never married women to increase significantly, where 45% of women between 25 and 44 will be single (though admittedly that is “single,” not “never married”). Regardless, you can safely assume AT MINIMUM 30% of women from 18-35 have no effective interest in marrying and need to be removed from this calculation. *Additional sources for “The Spinster at 35 Ratio” can be found here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/livingsingle/202009/record-number-americans-have-never-married-andnever-will https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-share-of-never-married-americans-hasreached-a-new-high

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-ofamericans-have-never-married/ The Percent of Women Willing to Date “Average Joe 5” The next step is calculating what percent of the remaining 70% of women are willing to date “Average Joe 5.” And here we look at three variables: Looks Income, and Status Specifically, we look at what women's requirements are of men to meet these thresholds/standards, and then calculate the percent of “Average Joe 5's” who actually do. Looks Though it is a bit dated, the dating site “OK Cupid” published a study in 2009 that showed women rated 80% of men “below average” when it came to attractiveness.

This study obviously made headlines, but corroborated other studies and phenomenon on the matter. One such study (of which I could not find, only remember) had 100 college girls and 100 college guys rate whether they would sleep with each other. The results showed men were willing to sleep with women of equal attraction or higher, but 80% of women were only willing to sleep with the top 20% of guys. Regardless of the study, this Pareto distribution where only 20% of men are deemed attractive by women is pretty much the industry standard when it comes to human attraction. With men's sex drive at 9 times that of women, women can afford to be choosy when selecting a mate, insisting on only the top tier of men. However, while this is great for the George Clooneys of the world, this bodes very poorly for “Average Joe 5” as only 20% of women will find him attractive, relegating him to only 1/5th of the female population. Income

An equally popular study was released by Cornell in 2020 titled “Economically Unattractive Men.” It surveyed single women of marrying age about what requirements they had of men before marrying (employment, education, income, etc.) and then compared those requirements against what the available pool of bachelors in America had. They found that in addition to more education and more employment, women hypergamically insisted on men having incomes 58% higher than what the average American bachelor made. This predictably caused a cascade of gossip columns in the media about how “Men need to grow up!!!” and “Where have all the good men gone?!” and other tiring lamentations of women. However, in that study there was an insightful nugget of information. Namely, that the average bachelorette required an income 58% higher than what the average bachelor made. And using data from the US Census Bureau's 2019 Annual Population Survey, we were able to calculate that this translates into $64,231. Of which only 15% of single men between 18-45 make. *Studies cited above: https://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/spotlights/economicallyunattractive https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2019/demo/cps/cps-asec2019.html Status The final variable needed to assess whether a woman would find a man attractive or not is his status. This is intangible and cannot be easily measured, but the obsession young women today seem to have with a man's education is particularly interesting. A plumber could make $90,000 a year, but most women wouldn't give him the time of day because “he's a plumber.” A mechanic could make 4 times that of a social worker, but because she has a “Masters

Degree” she will still deem him beneath her. Furthermore, women themselves seem to irrationally value their education more than the income it can generate, often times putting their education at the core of their lives. So education was selected as a proxy for status. It is here we assumed that women would insist on a man with an equal-or-higher education to hers. And when you account for all levels of education, if men and women of equal education were to pair up, only 75.2% of women would have an equally-educated partner, leaving 24.8% of women refusing to date their lowereducated male counterparts. This means your “Average Joe 5,” unless highly educated, can expect to meet the status requirements of women only 75.2% of the time. Finalizing “The Percent of Women Willing to Date 'Average Joe 5'” When we consider: only 20% of women find “Average Joe 5” attractive enough to date. only 15% of single Average Joe's meet women's income requirements, and only 75.2% of Average Joe's will meet the status/educational requirements of women this implies only 2.26% of women will even entertain a date from your “Average Joe.” However, since we selected education as a proxy for status, it should surprise no one that both income and status correlate positively with one another and this co-correlation needs to be backed out. When this adjustment is made, the percent of women willing to date your average American man increases to 2.93%. An Alternative Measure – Online Dating Data

While for the purposes of this study we will be using the 2.93% figure to gauge women's interest in dating “Average Joe's,” it needs to be noted that today the vast majority of dating is conducted online. This provides us with an alternative venue by which to measure women's interest in dating, as online dating platforms allow us to collect data, run experiments, and calculate statistics. The argument could even be made that this data would be more accurate since 80% of dating is done online. Interestingly enough, three men conducted their own experiments using different dating platforms to measure their success in dating. And while not official studies with proper control groups or variables, the results were very interesting just the same. “500 Days On Cupid” https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7oqygb/my_500_ days_on_okcupid_oc/ “My 28 Days on Tinder” https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/83ttdq/oc_my_28 _days_on_tinder/ “117 Days of My Tinder Profile” https://towardsdatascience.com/117-days-of-tinder-in-data755fe9ed853e You can certainly read through the studies above, but the short version is this: After 10's of thousands of swipes, hundreds of messages, and scores of flirtations, a paltry few ended up on an actual date. Months (in one guy's case, over a year) of online dating and the average guy got 4 dates. And when you delve into the data what you'll find is a shocking lack of interest in dating on the part of women. After normalizing the data from the above studies, it took 32,600 swipes to get 11 dates. Assuming these guys were “Average Joe

5's,” this implies the percent of women interested in average men is .03% (Not 3%. Point-zero-three percent). Of course, this is likely more of a function of online dating where women get thousands of matches and simply don't have the time to sift through all their requests. It's also a function of a tactic where men just swipe right on every profile as a means to save time, foisting the job of screening onto the women. But even accounting for that, if you take the number of matches this generated (571), the 11 dates implies only 1.93% of women are interested in dating an Average Joe. Though the 2.93% figure will be used for the rest of this study, keep in mind the 1.93% statistic could be used as a theoretical lower limit to gauge women's interest in dating average men. The Number of Men Women Date Before Marrying In Chapter 4 we calculated a “Dates Per Marriage” ratio to figure out how many women a man will date before marrying one of them. We now apply this same logic to women because just because a woman decides to date a man, doesn't mean she's going to marry him. And whereas men will date 67 women before marrying, women are not as choosy, dating only 10.4 men per marriage (though this is likely because women are much more picky when it comes to dating, screening more thoroughly at the dating stage). This implies if you make it past this higher hurdle, women tend to marry 9.6% of the men they date. This provides us with the final number we need to calculate The Percent of Women Who Will Marry “Average Joe 5.” The Final Number for “The Percent of Women Who Will Marry 'Average Joe 5'” When we:

Back out the 30% of women who will simply not marry before 35 Account for the fact only 20% of them will find your average man attractive Account for the fact only 15% of single men meet women's income requirements Account for the 25% of men who will fail to meet women's educational/status requirements Adjust for the correlation between 3 and 4, and Assume women only marry about 9.6% of the men they date we come up with .197%. Not 1.97%. Point-one-nine-seven percent. Just shy of 2 tenths of 1% of women are statistically likely to marry the random average Joe. This is the second of three variables needed to calculate whether you will enjoy a happy marriage.

CHAPTER 6 – THE CHANCES: THE PERCENT CHANCE YOUR MARRIAGE WILL BE A HAPPY ONE It is here it would pay some dividends to review what we've calculated and, more importantly, what it means. Because as the percentages become increasingly small and the number of decimal points increases, context is necessary so we don't get lost in the numbers. Thus far we have calculated two statistics from Chapters 4 and 5: The Percent of Women that are Marriageable – 2.72%. The Percent of Women Willing to Marry “Average Joe 5” - .197% And the reason we calculated these two statistics was to calculate not only the percent of the female population you would want to marry, but the chances that one of them would want to marry you in return. So when you combine the two together, your average man is facing a .00536% chance of these two events happening. At first this may seem impossible. A .00536% chance? It's practically hopeless. But keep in mind two major factors. One, this is in a country that has a population of 320 million, our target demographic of which numbers 44 million. Yes, the percentages are very small, but they are being applied to populations that are very large, which will result in more realistic numbers. Two, in calculating the percent of the total female population that is marriageable, this implies you would be selecting from the total population, asking completely random girls out on dates. Obviously

this would not be the case as you would select for beauty, intelligence, femininity, or at least variables you can visually identify. So the .00536% number is NOT your actual chances of getting married. It's the chance of you asking a random woman on the street out for a date and it ends up in marriage, which is both improbable and impractical. Still, the real world numbers are pretty dire. If we were to apply the statistics we've calculated thus far in a more practical manner, it is true that only 2.72% of American women have zero major deal breakers. This means of the 44 million women between the ages of 18-35, 1.2 million of them are considered marriageable. Of that 1.2 million, only 2.93% of those women are willing to date “Average Joe 5's” which means there's 35,160 “unicorns” out there for your everyday American Joe. The problem is, how many everyday, average American Joe's are there in the US?” If you assume a linear distribution and define “5” as truly average, there's about 4.4 million single “average American Joe's” in the US. These 4.4 million are chasing after the only 35,160 women that might consider dating them, meaning there's 125 “Average Joe 5's” for every unicorn. This means there's a .8% chance you'll date one, and this says nothing about whether you'll be one of the 9.6% of men she might marry. It's a drastic improvement over the dire .00536% chance unrealistically provided by the model, but it's still not great. But bad as they are, these real world, practical numbers introduce a CRITICAL factor that we've yet to discuss. A factor, that when accounted for, has more bearing on your success with women than the statistics themselves. Action. And when we factor in action, it turns these statistics on their head.

While there's no denying the numbers are indeed dire, they are not futile in that men do not throw themselves at the mercy of these statistics, casting fate to the wind, sitting at home with their thumbs up their asses. Men have agency. They have control. They can take action to improve their chances. So yes, the baseline statistics may be impossible, but this assumes men do nothing to improve their chances with women. And though there are a thousand things men can do to improve their chances with women, one of the simplest things men can do to dramatically increase their chances is ask a lot of girls out. Mock the serial daters all you like, but in asking out thousands of women to get hundreds of dates, over decades of years, they move that decimal point 1, 2, maybe even 3 places to the right, drastically increasing their chances into the realm of possibility. And this says nothing about whether you work out, get a better degree, put in OT at the office, which would also dramatically increase your chances. So say you start working out, you put on some better clothes, and commit yourself to asking 100 girls a year out. Soon your chances are no longer the .8% chance you'll ever date a unicorn, but more like 80%. Who knows, you might even marry one. So when you factor in the fact men can take actions that will increase their chances, there is real hope you might actually find a quality woman to date, maybe even make one your wife.

There's just one, minor, tinsy-winsy problem. Let's say you do all the work, ask out 1,000 girls a year, hit the gym, and maybe even get lucky and find yourself your one true love. And let's say you get extra lucky and she's not only a unicorn, but you guys decide to marry. You're sitting there on your wedding day with your best friend delivering his speech, looking lovingly into each other's eyes, giddy with excitement about what the future brings including the crotchless panties she bought for that night. The future is nothing but bright. But before you start feeding each other wedding cake and pontificate about what you're going to name your children...

what are the chances that marriage is going to last, let alone be a happy one? Factoring in Divorce and Unhappy Marriages Since the goal of the pursuit of women is to be happily married we now get to run the gauntlet of marriage. And in running that gauntlet, men get to face that classic Baby Boomer American Past Time – divorce. It is no secret that 50% of marriages end in divorce today. It is also no secret that between 70-80% of the time it is the woman who initiates the divorce. And while successive post-Baby Boomer generations of men have tried to mitigate this risk by cohabitating, only 50% of cohabitating couples remain together, presenting the same effective divorce rate. However, remember our goal was not “to not get divorced.” It was to be “happily married” and this presents an even bigger challenge. Because while you at least have a roulette's chance of staying married, remaining happily so is even more elusive. Here reliable data and research are hard to come by. What qualifies as a “happy marriage?” Is it both spouses reporting being happily married? What about measuring error where you ask a husband in front of his wife if he's happy? Do people lie to themselves and tell pollsters they're happy? What about Herman and Ethel who were married for 40 years when Ethel decided to file for divorce on the 41st year? There is simply no reliable way to measure what percent of couples are happily married. Still, the best data that could be found comes from a “Psychology Today” article that cites two statistics from two books. One estimates the percent of happily married couples to be 17% while the other is more optimistic at 40%, averaging to 28.5% of couples being happily married.

But keep in mind 28.5% is not the chances of your marriage being happy. You have to account for the fact that 50% of marriages end. When you factor that in, your chances at a happy marriage are half that chance – 14.25%. And though that's not terribly good news (depressing actually) it does provide us the final number we need to calculate the statistic we've been working towards these past three chapters - “The Percent Chance You Will Be Happily Married,” aka “What You're Going to Get.” Finalizing “The Percent Chance You Will Be Happily Married” aka – “What You're Going to Get” When we take the following statistics derived from the following chapters: Chapter 4 – The Percent of Women Who are Marriageable 2.72% Chapter 5 – The Percent of Women Who Will Marry Average Joe 5 .197% Chapter 6 – The Percent Chance that Marriage Will Remain a Happy One 14.25% we can finally calculate the first half of the ROI formula. And if you remember correctly, this “benefit” or “what you're going to get” was not that you would be happily married. Like a lottery ticket it was a chance you'd be happily married. And when you multiply the numbers above that chance is .00076283%. That's it. That's all. This is what the pursuit of women is all about.

When you pursue a woman, you get a .00076283% CHANCE of success. But while infinitesimally small, keep in mind what this statistic does and does not say. It does NOT say you stand a .00076283% chance of ever being happily married. It says that if the “Average Joe 5” asks “Average Jane 5” out on a date there is a .00076283% of that particular instance ending up in a happy marriage. And if it doesn't that's alright, because there's a pool of 44 million more women between the ages of 18-35 to choose from. In other words that .00076283% chance is “per event” or “per girl” a guy asks out. And as discussed before, it's within men's power to take action to increase their overall chances of being happily married, the least of which you can do is ask more girls out. This re-emphasizes the importance of action. Instead of the 2 girls your average cowardly American man asks out every year, get the balls to ask out 100. Instead of waiting for a girl to give you a very clear sign at a bar, man up, walk up to her and start talking. Instead of waiting till the last day of class to ask a girl out, ask her out the first day and if she says no, sit next to a different girl the second day of class and try again. And if you see a cute girl at the grocery store you'd like to ask out, then do so. Furthermore, there are things you can do to improve your chances beyond increasing the number of “events” you have with women. Hit the gym. Get some nicer clothes. Lose weight. Learn to ballroom dance. Develop the gift of gab. Be educated. Get a good degree. Get a good career. Work more. Earn more. Invest more. Develop a devastating personality. Be charming. Be fast. Get a hair cut. Put on nice cologne. Move out of the house. Get a job. Listen to jazz. Borrow a puppy. And learn to wink. You are not a hapless twig at the mercy of some raging river.

But while all those actions above will no doubt certainly increase your chances of success with women, there's an interesting philosophical and ironic consequence to the nature of “action.” An opposite side of the action coin if you will. Because while you're a young man hustling at work, making six figures, getting your masters, bucking for promotion, taking salsa classes, all while religiously attending the gym, there's a word for all those actions you're taking to get the girls. “Work.” And all that work you put into chasing women comes at a great cost. The cost of which will be tallied in Chapter 8.

CHAPTER 7 – THE CHANCES: REAL WORLD NUMBERS The problem with the .00076283% number is not that it's so small. It's that it's impractical by itself. A man's success with women is not “.00076283%” as that number merely measures the percent chance a single event will lead to success. A man's success with women is a function of both that .00076283% and the number of events he has with women over the course of his life. And while there are certainly other factors that go into success (which will be addressed in Chapter 10), it would prove very beneficial to run some scenarios to not only measure the efficacy of this model, but to get an idea of what the average man can expect in terms of “success” with women in the real world. To that end we are going to run 2 real world scenarios using this model where the first is the return your average man can expect in his pursuit of women, and the second scenario is that of a “serial dater” who puts forth significantly more effort towards dating. This will give us both “average” and “optimistic” real world estimates of what you can expect in your own personal pursuit. Average/Optimistic Scenarios and Assumptions

Though we could vary many variables and run unlimited scenarios with these two men, we're going to solely focus on how many women each man will ask out over the course of his life, assuming they start at 16 and go till 36 (2 decades worth of asking women out). The “normal” man asks out about 3 girls per year while the “serial dater” will ask out 100. We are also going to make an assumption that only 20% of women will say yes to dates to both the serial dater and the normal guy. The reason it is not the 2.26% calculated in Chapter 5 is because that does not account for pre-selection. When men choose to ask a girl out on a date it's not at random and he's usually selected a girl who is more likely to say yes. Real world dating experience puts women's responses closer to 20%. Under these two scenarios the results are not only expected, but roughly corroborated with what we witness in the real world. The man who puts significant effort into his dating life, approaching it even to the level of a part time job, can expect to date 11 unicorns in his life. Of course, not all of these women will want to marry him, but because of his volume of dating, he can fully expect to be married to a unicorn (1.04 unicorns in fact). Of course, there's only a 14.25% chance he will be happily married, but that is significantly higher than what his average American male counterpart can expect.

The average American male only asks out about 3 girls a year. Certainly this varies, but to be perfectly honest, your average American male is a coward, putting little-to-no effort in his pursuit of women. The results are not surprising. He will only ask out 60 girls over the course of his life. Date 12 of them, resulting in having only a 3% chance of being married to a unicorn. This is what you'd expect your chances to be if you were a normal, overweight “average Joe 5” - a near zero chance. However, differences between your average American male and serial daters aside, the key statistic to pull from these figures is the number of men who are happily married “per '000.” Even if you're a player and date 400 women in your life, the chances of being happily married are still only about 15%. You've beaten the near-impossible odds of finding a unicorn and marrying one with the significant work you've put into dating, but marriage is just not that happy of an institution. Only 1 in 6 players are going to be happily married. But what is even more convincing of the veracity of this model is what the average guy can expect in terms of being “happily married” which is only 4.5 in 1000. And this is what we see commonly...or rather, all too infrequently...in the real world – a truly happily married couple. If you were to be honest, you could count on one hand the number of truly happily married couples you've witnessed in your life. The ones where the wife always looks at her husband with beaming eyes and giddy adoration. The ones where the husband still pinches his wife in the ass even though they're approaching 70 and they're probably still having sex. And especially the ones where the husband makes an off colored joke, evoking a giggle, an eye roll, or a little backhanded slap to his chest from his wife. But for every one of these couples how many thousands of “normal” unhappy couples have you seen? Probably too many to count.

Thus, the phenomenon of “happily married couples” is so rare it only exists in a “units per thousand” basis because such people and such love are so rare. And thus, while your dedicated player can expend his life to boost those chances to 1 in 6, your average American male can accept his 4 in 1,000 chances of attaining this true American dream. And that is the point. This is truly what you get in your pursuit of women. For most of you, a mere fraction of a 1% chance at marital bliss given the amount of effort your average man puts into it. And on the optimistic side, a player, who dedicates the equivalent to a 2 decades-long part time job to find his unicorn, upgrading his chances to 1 in 6. We all want that loving, doting wife who maintains her physique for us and loves us for who we are. We all want to make a flirtatious, but mischievous comment that earns us an “oh you!” as she backhands us in the chest. Sadly, this is the one-in-a-thousand exception that proves the rule. The rule that over 99% of American men will suffer a wife they really don't want to be with and certainly don't want to fuck. And don't get cocky, because she doesn't want to fuck you either. This is the state of marriage in the US. This is the standard you can expect in the pursuit of American marriage. This is really “what you get” when you pursue women. * It should be noted the numbers above may already be outdated as it assumes a traditional form of dating where men ask women out in person. Online dating has revolutionized this, making the numbers much worse, even changing the nature of dating itself. The “event unit” is no longer a man asking a woman out, but a man swiping right on an app. Further complicating matters is women's responses to swipes are nowhere near 20%, but are effectively 0%. Additionally, as evidenced in some of the online dating experiments before, only 1 in 4,000 swipes results in a date necessitating a whole new slew of

statistics. And worse still, the nature of online dating has itself evolved in a mere short 5 years, going from one where men and women would date, to that of a tool women just use to get attention. Therefore, the numbers above are intended to show how much success a man can expect with a general amount of “effort,” whether that effort is in person or online. ** It should also be acknowledged that if a man selects for women missing those 8 deal breaking variables, this would no doubt increase his chances of a happy marriage. The problem is no such research exists showing what kind of effect a man selecting for traditional values (let alone the ones previously discussed) has on his chances of being happily married. Any insight, research, or data that might provide an estimate of this effect would be appreciated.

CHAPTER 8 – THE COSTS In having the benefits of the pursuit of women calculated, we now need to move on to the price men pay for this pursuit. And as discussed in Chapter 3 these costs can be broken down across three general categories: Explicit Costs Opportunity Costs, and Intangible Costs Not all these costs have finite, financial price tags attached to them. Nor does the fact some of these costs are intangible mean they're not real or that men do not pay/suffer them. But to provide context and reference so that men can see just what price they pay to stand a 4 in 1,000 chance at being happily married, measuring or at least acknowledging these costs is vital to calculating the ROI of the pursuit of women. Explicit Costs Explicit costs are the actual, cash expenses men will incur in their pursuit of women. Some of these are obvious like dates, dinners, cover charges, and fancy shirts. Others are not so obvious, but very real nonetheless. For example, what about college? Would men attend college anywhere near the levels they do if there were no women to woo with their engineer salaries? What about auto expenses? If you're interested in transportation, a reliable used car only costs about $4,000. But if you're looking to impress girls (like most 20 something men are) you'll gladly drop

$36,000 on a new car and another $30,000 in interest payments on a car you technically can't afford. Do you waste $3,000 a month on some schwank bachelor “pad” to impress women, when in reality you could probably rent a room for $500 if you weren't pursuing women at all? And what about weddings? Wedding rings? Engagement rings? Honeymoons? And the 50% guarantee you'll be paying for the divorce costs that come with them? Do these costs factor into your analysis of the pursuit of women? When you add it up, men blow an inordinate amount of money on the pursuit of women. Easily three times what they need to survive. And so a serious, thorough calculation needs to be done estimating how much men spend that they wouldn't have otherwise had women theoretically never existed. Thankfully, the field of finance breaks down explicit costs into three general sub-categorizes that will help in our calculation: Pursuit Costs (or “Acquisition Costs”) Maintenance Costs, and Disposal Costs And when you consider these sub-costs you can see just how much cash-money men spend on women. Pursuit Costs Pursuit costs are considered the costs men incur when they're chasing women. This can include anything from cover charges to dating to fancy shoes, but any and all expenses they would not have incurred otherwise needs to be considered. This can run the gambit because what part of a young man's life isn't at least tangentially associated with chasing girls? Would men go out as much to the bars if there weren't girls there? What about the gas to get there?

Technically, if you weren't chasing women, shouldn't all your clothes be purchased from Goodwill? Therefore, for the sake of the study we focused on eliminating the following major expenses that would likely go away if men didn't pursue women: average annual dating expenses (est. at $1,855/year) half a man's higher education expenses half the annual interest costs on the average man's student loans additional annual car costs men incur above women half the cost of weddings, wedding rings, and honeymoons Additional adjustments were made to account for young men not having as much money as when they are older and other variables, but when it's all said and done the average man can expect to pay $67,900 in pursuit costs from 18 to about 30, at which point the average man marries. This is very likely a low-end estimate as any man will confess to easily blowing through that much money in his single years chasing girls. Maintenance Costs Just because you're married does not mean the work is over. Quite the contrary, many married men would claim this is just when the work is about to begin. And so even though you and your beloved are married, doesn't mean the wooing, dating, courting, or expenses are over. Conservatively, your average married man still has to spend $1,600 annually on dates, taking his wife out and courting her proper. This also assumes a man will disproportionately subsidize his wife's living expenses as women do not make as much as men, but still are going to insist on the “SUV” or the “trampoline for the kids.” Don't forget millions of men inevitably pay for their wives' student loans. And none of these figures consider the real expenses many other men will incur “keeping up with the Jonses” such as finished

basements, granite countertops, boats, and the potpourri of other expenses that ensure a “happy wife, happy life.” But in the end, the average man can expect to shell out an additional $80,000 in lifetime maintenance costs to continue courting his wife (again many married men will contest this is a very, very, very low estimate). However, there is some good news. Only half of these men will incur these maintenance costs till death do them part because the other half of men will get divorced. And though this ends the costs of maintaining a wife, it introduces a whole new set of costs - disposal costs. Disposal Costs The cost of your average divorce is surprisingly difficult to track down. It depends on the state you're in, cost of living, what the spouse made, what the other spouse made, and a whole host of other state laws. But ever so roughly the average man can expect a divorce rate of 50%. The average divorce will cost him $20,000 in legal fees. And the average man at the age of 40 can expect to forfeit half his estimated net worth of $125,000 to his soon-to-be-ex. And this says nothing of the alimony you can expect to pay, which roughly ends up being $6,000 per year for 5 years. When you tally up the total figure, your average American man can expect a 50% chance of paying $113,000 in “disposal” costs. Total Explicit Costs When all is said and done, starting from the age of 18 to your dying day at 78, the average man can expect to shell out in EXPLICIT CASH EXPENSES $260,785 in his pursuit, maintenance, and disposal of a woman. And this optimistically assumes you do NOT get married (and divorced) a second, third, or fourth time. Just your average man marrying once and divorcing once will spend over a quarter million dollars in CASH EXPENSES pursuing

women...almost half of which are disposal costs. Admittedly, there is a 50% chance you do not get divorced, in which case you will only incur $148,000 in lifetime expenses. But whether it's $260,000 or $148,000 both are more than enough of an initial nest egg to fully fund the retirement of a single man. Opportunity Costs Ask yourself a simple question. Even though you may not be married or some middle-aged 50 year old right now, how many of you would go back in time to tell your 18 year old self to: Spend less time chasing girls, Spend that time instead working more and making more money, Take said money and invest it in the S&P 500? And even though you may not know the precise math of it, it's pretty much a guarantee every man reading this book, let alone every man in the world, wishes he could tell his younger self to have done precisely that. Invest more in himself, less in women, and park the savings in the market. This “opportunity cost” is theoretical. Neither you, nor I, nor most men in the world had the wisdom or maturity to stop wasting money chasing girls and invest it instead in the stock market. But it is still a price we paid in that if we did not chase women the resulting savings technically would have gone somewhere, some of which maybe into an S&P 500 indexed fund. And though we could debate that we would have likely frittered it away on video games or travel, to attach a price tag to the “opportunity” we forfeited, theoretically parking said savings into the S&P 500 is a very logical and financially sound assumption. And so had you...

taken the $260,000 you spent chasing women and invested it instead in the S&P 500 index, starting at 18, with an inflation-adjusted 8.64% return per year, until you lived the average male life expectancy of 79 years, you would have... $9,685,096. $9,424,311 more than the $260,000 you spent chasing girls. That $9.4 million is your opportunity cost in chasing women (though if you avoided divorce, this drops down to only $6.9 million). Of course the real opportunity cost is not necessarily the money, but what you could have done with it. $9.4 million is of no value to a 79 year old man because he's almost dead. But over the course of your life what could you have done with that $9.4 million? Could you have traveled more? Could you have pursued more hobbies? What about work? What about an entrepreneurial venture? Would you even need a job unless you wanted it? And what about all the psychological and physical health benefits that would come with the financial stability, peace, and calm that such money could afford? All those months you were worried about “making rent” or “affording groceries” would have never happened had you not been chasing girls. It's hard to put a price tag on such things. Intangible Costs Finally, there are intangible costs. Ask yourself another question - what would you pay to go back in time to prevent your 18 year old self from suffering all the mental pain, anguish and misery that came from being led on, being stood up, being strung along, being flaked on, being subjected to girls' fake bipolar episodes, being cheated on, the petty drama, the petty

arguments, the stupid questions, the wife getting fat, the wife spending money, the arguments about money, the hoarding of worthless shit, arguing about the kids, being nagged, being told where to park, getting divorced, going through divorce, suffering from divorce, and being hounded about who does more household chores? And what any man who has the slightest bit of experience with women will tell you is that money is only one form of price you pay. Arguably the smaller of prices, as men pay an incredible mental and emotional price when it comes to pursuing women. From the time your little heart is kicked in when you're first stood up by a girl at 14, to the crushing depression that comes when your ex won't let you see your children as she's banging the guy she left you for, there is absolutely no doubt that men pay dearly in terms of stress, strife, frustration, heartache, confusion, and other mental suffering. Unfortunately, these intangible costs are often played down by society, including men themselves as they instinctually throw up the facade of invincibility or machismo. But the prices they pay are very real. When a 15 year old boy is stood up by a girl who lied to him, you might laugh at that today, but it was devastating to you then. We do the same when we jokingly reminisce about the mandatory bipolar girl every American man must date once, but in the thick of it, it was nothing short of psychotic and traumatic. We can roll our eyes when a man complains about his nagging wife, but nagging is nothing more than the slow murdering of his marriage via a deathby-a-thousand cuts. Related, your wife getting fat can be expected, even laughed at by your buddies, but it's nothing short of your entire sex life ending. And unless you've been there, you can't even fathom just how completely destructive it is to a man's mental health to get cheated on, get divorced, and lose his kids. When you consider that these are everyday normal things nearly every man will face in his life, your average man is incredibly fortunate if he comes out of life suffering mere “anxiety” or

“depression.” Most men are guaranteed to suffer a crippling bout of depression. Most men are indeed going to suffer actual trauma. Most men have a constant cortisol dump into their adrenal system. Consequently, most men today are likely suffering from some lowlevel form of PTSD resulting from their pursuit of women. And it should shock no one that as a consequence men die earlier either of “natural causes” or, more tragically, by their own hand. These intangible costs cannot be measured, but they can be acknowledged. You are guaranteed to pay some kind of mental, psychological, or emotional price in your pursuit of women. But if you need to somehow put a price tag on these costs, it is almost guaranteed most men today would gladly pay the cash price of $260,000 or opportunity cost of $9.4 million to have avoided suffering these costs in their own lives. Losing your family, having no sex life, nagging, getting strung along, or just the torturing confusion all men suffered in their youth is enough to ruin any man's life. And if your life is ruined, then you really have nothing at all. Total Costs When you consider the explicit, opportunity, and intangible costs, the total costs of the pursuit of women can be summed up in one word – total. We can bat around cleverly-calculated numbers, speculating about theoretical financial concepts like “opportunity costs,” but when you tally up the average amount a man will invest in the pursuit of women, both in terms of time, money, and mental energies, the price is total. It is complete. Men will essentially spend their entire lives in the pursuit of women. And this is perfectly expected as men are more or less compelled to. Disagree with it all you want, men are inextricably linked to women (and women to men) through genetics and biology. This dooms you

to at least pay some intangible, amorphous price to them because at minimum you are forced by nature to be attracted to them sexually, some of which you will fall in love with romantically, and be vested in the children you have with them genetically. Due to the binary nature of the sexes, men are compelled to derive most of their value from women (and women men) which means nature will force an unavoidable price upon you. The real issue is whether the costs are now so great, and the return so little, it's enough to override a man's biological programming. That the economics of the proposed transaction is so bad and so risky, it pits a man's survival against his desire to reproduce or fall in love. And when presented with this modern day “Male Black Widow Paradox” it should surprise no one if most men ignore the 2 million years of human evolution screaming at them to breed, and instead maybe just pour themselves a scotch as they enjoy a quiet night watching Kelly's Heroes. Because while it would be nice to have a supporting, loving wife, who remains svelte and takes care of the children, that lottery ticket is not only increasingly rare, but openly mocked and detested in today's society (just ask young women today if they want to stay home and raise the children while cooking you a meal). Instead most men are nearly guaranteed a costly life of penury, destitution, divorce, poverty, headache, heartache, nagging, confusion, and technical-enslavement, coming from an obese woman no less. And when you consider that statistical reality, the whole point and purpose of human existence be damned. Not at those prices.

CHAPTER 9 – THE ROI The ROI of the Pursuit of Women In having both the price men pay for the pursuit of women, as well as what they get in return, we now have the two variables necessary to calculate ROI. The price men pay can be anything on the low end from $260,000 in explicit costs, to a more theoretical (though no less real) cost of $9.6 million in lost economic potential, to an intangible “everything” when you consider all the mental, psychological, and emotional costs men are expected to pay. What men get in return is cryptically calculated to be a 4.5 in 1,000 chance of being happily married, which can be optimistically increased to a 15% chance of being happily married if a man decides to dedicate a lifetime of part-time work to this endeavor. Because the return is not financial, we cannot get a numerical “percent rate of return” as you would in finance or investing. But this does allow men to calculate an internal ROI to see if the product is worth the price. And so the entirety of this study boils down to one simple question: “Is a 4.5 in 1,000 chance at being happily married worth $260,000 in cash?” Or, if you take a more comprehensive approach to cost: “Is a 4.5 in 1,000 chance at being happily married worth your entire life?” And the answer is, “Probably most certainly not.”

Because while we can talk about microscopic chances of success, costs going into the millions, and the countless decimal points that result, what we’re really talking about are theoretical mathematical numbers that we're asymptotically approaching. Numbers like 0 and infinity. And though we can cutely pull statistical numbers from the behaviors of the female population, and actuarially derive what theoretical chances of success this translates into for men, it’s much more simple and practical to bluntly translate all of this into plain English: You effectively stand NO CHANCE at being happy in your pursuit of women. AND That pursuit will cost you EVERYTHING in life. Thus the real ROI of the pursuit of women is: 0/∞= 0%. And the price is $∞, aka “your entire life.” In short, from an economics perspective, you are a fool to dedicate your life to the pursuit of women and, frankly, you really ought to find something better to do. But there is an opposite side to this actuarial-philosophical coin. Additionally, we are humans, not economists, and everything is not about numbers. Because to be intellectually honest, we know not all women are deal-breaker-riddled, STD-infected, student loan indebted, tatted-up single moms. We do know good women exist. We have seen happily married men with our own eyes, and the wonderful, lovely women these lucky men are married to. We may

have even had a “one that got away” ourselves. So the fact these women do exist (admittedly in near zero-numbers) means we do have to factor them and their value into our pursuit. And when their small numbers are combined with the fact men will pay nearly “infinity” for them, this makes these rare and precious women one thing and one thing only... priceless. And though this study may sound to have a pessimistic tone towards women, the numbers we just went through proves just how valuable a good woman is in today’s world. And if you're one of the few lucky men to have one, then you really ought to appreciate that rare woman as she's technically infinitely-valuable. Thus, the true economic nature of the pursuit of women is more of a gamble than it is an investment. A gamble whose statistics of which are not too unlike winning the lottery. And like the lottery there is a smart way to play it and a dumb way to play it. The dumb way to play the lottery is to spend all your money to the detriment of your life, naively and stupidly hoping you’re going to win. But if you’re smart you'll realize there’s a small-but-real chance you’ll win. And it might be worth some token effort to play the lottery on the off-chance you do. But as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of destroying your life, that is about the best way to play this lottery if nature is going to force you to play it. Therefore, it is not so much whether the ROI of the pursuit of women is worth it. It's that if you're going to pursue women you do so intelligently and with the full knowledge it is likely you still won't succeed. And in playing this lottery wisely you will ensure you don't pay the horrific costs most men do, while still standing the outside chance you might find one of those “infinitely-valuable” women. But don't kid yourself. It's still like winning the lottery. Your chances are absolutely abysmal.

Alternative Measures of ROI Claiming women have a 0% rate of return can easily be dismissed as cynicism, bias, even misogyny. And certainly the premise of this study is unconventional. But do not let civility, politeness, politics, closemindedness, or men's inclination to defer to women blind you to that fact that something is going on in the real world. Men may joke about the ROI of women being low, or roll their eyes when talking about nagging, or laugh at their life-crippling divorce. But make no mistake about it, the love between men and women has been destroyed by society and things are that bad. This necessitates revisiting some of the other numbers we calculated along the way so that you might take the rose-colored glasses off your face and see the real world for what it is. A metaphorical slap across the face that wakes you up to the realities about pursuing modern day women. Because while theoretical numbers like “infinity” or “zero percent rate of return,” or esoteric philosophizing about modern day women's nature being that of gambling may make a larger philosophical point, looking at some of the underlying numbers we calculated to get here will provide some real, sobering, but above all else eye-opening numbers. And it's up to you to have the courage and intellectual honesty to not only see them, but admit what it says about the state of men and women today and apply them in your own personal life. Take for example, single moms. Are you nuts? 40% of single women between 18-35 are moms? Just sit and think about that. Out of all the single women out there, 4 in 10 already have some other guy's kid. And what's worse is they don't see a problem with that. Worse than that, society and certainly single moms themselves celebrate single motherhood. And even worse than that, since single moms make up such a large percent of single females, most men today have resigned themselves to

cuckoldry, reluctantly accepting they might have to settle for a single mom. 100 years ago not a single self-respecting man would consider dating, let alone marrying a woman with another man's kid. Now, they're not only celebrated, but you're shamed, even accused of misogyny if you dare state your preference to eschew single moms. Obesity is another perfect example. 60% of women between 18-35 are fat. They're not even old yet and the majority of young women are already physically unattractive. And discomforting as it may be, physical attraction is vital to the survival of the human race, and 6 out of 10 women don't have it. And though, admittedly, men are no better (being equally obese to women) at least they're not delusional enough to celebrate it. Like single motherhood, society's response to female obesity is not about getting women's weight down, or heart health, or concern about stroke or diabetes. It's one of celebration. “Fat acceptance.” “Big is beautiful.” “Body positivity.” And if any man dare state the obvious - that men are not attracted to overweight women - he is immediately crucified in society. The only thing that makes this more of an Orwellian nightmare is some women actually believe they can shame men into overriding their hard-wired biological programming to prefer thin women, claiming “female beauty is a social construct.” But all it really is, is proof that society has lost its collective mind. Coincidentally, it's also proof that your primary interest in women (female beauty) is being completely ignored by women, even purged from the female population, drastically lowering your ROI in the pursuit of them. STD's anyone? 1 in 4 women have herpes. I'll say that again in case you didn't hear it the first time.

1 in 4 women have herpes! Yes, men have an infection rate of 1 in 10. And yes, most women are asymptomatic. But what does that say when 25% of women have just ONE of the more serious sexually transmitted diseases? How much do you want to roll the dice? How much of a risk are you willing to take? Just like obese women, many men resign themselves to knowingly dating women with STD's because they're just that large a percent of the population. But these statistical realities aside, look at what you're lowering yourselves to. Look at what you've become. You are dating or marrying someone with herpes. We could go on. 80% of women are financially impaired with tons of student loans for completely unemployable degrees. 40% of women aposematically have tattoos. At minimum 1 in 4 are being treated for a mental illness. Worse, an unknown, but significant percentage of them are faking it. If you're an “Average Joe 5” only about 2% of them will consider dating you. And you're expected to wed yourself to this risk pool with a 50% chance of divorce and an even smaller chance of happiness. At some point you have to stand back, unplug yourself from The Matrix, and critically assess the quality and caliber of the women in front of you. And if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize this isn't some WWII generation of lovely, supporting, feminine women, worthy of your life, love, and time. This is a cesspool. And your chances of finding a quality wife in it is the same as pulling a prize muskie out of the sewer.

Expect the ROI to Get Worse Bad as it is, expect things to get worse as there are three trends currently pushing women further away from men. Capitalism, Technology, and Government We first discussed this in the introductory chapter of this book. Capitalism has allowed for such technological and economic advancements in society that labor is now more skills and intelligence based than mere strength. This has not only opened the labor market up to women, but also enabled them to earn their own money, therefore making them less dependent on men. Capitalism has also allowed for a significant welfare state to be financed. The original intention of this was to provide a sort of social insurance against poverty and hungry, but it also had the ancillary effect of completely removing women's dependency on men. Keep in mind, however, these aren't necessarily “bad things.” The technological and economic advancements in society have made things better for everyone. Very few people work in the mines or toil in the fields, but instead do accounting in air conditioned offices. And doubling the labor force with women has certainly increased production, significantly increasing standards of living. Furthermore, you wouldn't want women to be financially dependent upon men. Not only because of the moral argument for individualism, freedom of choice, and volunteerism, but most men would prefer women WANT to be with them, instead of being FORCED out of destitution or desperation. So yes, advances in the economy and government policy have technically “pushed” women and men apart, but only to the extent of eliminating co-dependency and replacing it with volunteerism and genuine desire to be with each other. The two remaining trends, however, are absolutely toxic for malefemale relations and are guaranteed to not only worsen the ROI of

the pursuit of women, but rapidly so. These are the cult of feminism and social media. The Cult of Feminism Feminism originally started as a political movement for the equal treatment of women. Today you are going to have a hard time finding a man against that. However, over the past 50 years it has gone from a movement about equality to that of a socialist cult, the two main pillars of which are victimhood politics and having women replace men with themselves as their sole point and purpose in life. In terms of victimhood politics, feminism is trying nothing new. The aim of victimhood politics is to take a trait you were born with and then claim people without that trait are oppressing you, keeping you down, which therefore entitles you to recompense, preferential treatment, and lower standards. But because of the binary nature of the sexes, people “without the trait of being female” means “men.” And because there has to be an “oppressor” or “villain” in victimhood ideology, that squarely identifies men as the oppressor/villain in many young women's minds today. Unfortunately, this means many young women view men as “competitors at best, enemies at worst,” the antagonistic attitude of which renders these women completely unmarriageable. Even more effective than turning men and women against each other has been feminism's success in giving women a whole new value system by which to derive purpose and meaning in life. Traditionally, a loving husband and children is what gave women point and purpose. Love from other human beings is what made life worth living. However, one of the key principles of feminism is to not rely on men. And while this predominantly meant financially, it also meant spiritually. Women cannot rely on men for anything, including their happiness, purpose, or meaning in life as that would define them by men. You toss in a dose of victimhood politics, and feminism has been tremendously successful in removing men from

the number one position in women's lives, replacing them with the values feminism told women to have instead. Careerism. Education (beyond the point at which you benefit financially). Leftist politics. Charity/non-profit/volunteer work. Crusaderism. Even feminism as a religion itself. And so what has happened is you now have 3, coming up on 4 generations of young women, steeped in feminist ideology where they are programmed to NOT put men at the center of their lives, but instead themselves, and vicariously so through their careers, politics, hobbies, feminism, dog rescue teams, advanced degrees, volunteer work, etc. etc. (again, look at any online dating profile). And if still you don't believe that, simply look at what they're told and what they say. They literally say, “You don't need no man,” or “You can't rely on a man,” or “Men are toxic.” Think about the absurdity of that. You aren't needed. You are also toxic. And this isn't some fringe radical element saying this. This is what your rank and file young women today are told from kindergarten to college, and what they regurgitate over their lives.

Women may have an underlying biological programming or desire to want a man. But it is indisputable that society is currently and actively programming them against it. Social Media/The Internet The second toxic force pushing men and women away from each other is social media. An entire book could be written about the many and wide-ranging effects the internet and social media has had on dating and the sexes. But when you boil it down to its basic elements, what you are witnessing is the economic phenomenon of a substitute good. Traditionally men and women met, dated, and courted in person. Now that is rapidly being moved online and the consequences have been dramatic. First, the volume of potential suitors has increased exponentially. 100 years ago you were relegated to whoever lived in your local farming village and maybe a town or two over. Today you have access to EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET, bar a billion or so people who've yet to be hooked up to the internet. That has cast women into a perpetual dating cycle where there is ALWAYS the potential for a better man just a click away. Additionally, the global supply of men has flooded women with an indigestible amount of digital attention. This misleads them into thinking the supply of marriageable men is limitless, blinding women to any quality man standing right in front of them. Second, the risk in dating has dropped dramatically. Women no longer have to worry about whether a man is a rapist or a stalker, fully vetting men online before committing to an in-person date. Additionally, women don't have to be pained with the chore of turning a man down in person. Now they just simply don't respond to the message in their inbox and the man on the opposite end isn't too terribly offended. Men also avoid significant risk in their dating lives as well. They no longer have to build up the courage to ask a girl out in person, facing rejection. Instead they mindlessly swipe right on

girls they want to bang, and she is forever forgotten unless she contacts him in return. This lack of risk, personal interaction, rejection, and general “skin in the game” has not only forged lower caliber men and women, but now men and women value expressedinterest from one another a lot less. Third, with an unlimited supply of men/women and the elimination of risk, the value each of the sexes have for one another has gone down. Previous to the internet 70% of women would think nothing of standing a man up, but at least that was 30% who would show up. With online dating, even if women match with a guy, only 2% of them will inevitably go on a date, representing a 98% divestment from men. Men also no longer value women. They didn't have to put anything into the pursuit, merely a swipe right, fibbing about their income on a dating profile, and picture with a puppy. Furthermore, women's propensity to flake on men has resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy where men now fully expect women to cancel at the last minute, rarely setting up a date that exceeds anything past coffee. There is no longer the instance where a young man has to strategize over a week in class to talk, flirt, and woo a girl he likes into a date on Friday. Nor is there the instance where a girl dresses cutely, gives subtle hints, or encourages an interested man in return. Flirting is now cold, callous, removed, and digital. And it's often done while sitting on the toilet. That is how much men and women value each other. Fourth, speaking of coffee, this lack of value has resulted in a lack of investment and effort from both sexes. At best you will see a “C-” effort put into dating profiles with confusing pictures and half-assed descriptions. This is corroborated by the “D-” effort most young people put into their physical appearance as they go out in public wearing sweats and crocks. Unfortunately, this causes a negative feedback loop because (discomforting as this may be) you need physical attraction to fire up the passions of the opposite sex. Instead today men are greeted (either online or in person) with an obese, debt-ridden, slovenly-dressed Ramona Flowers. While men

return the favor by swiping right on a dating app as they stand in line at the 7-Eleven to buy some Cheetos and Mountain Dew on their EBT card before they go back to their mom's house to play video games. Obviously, this race to the bottom in American beauty pushes men and women further apart. But there is an interesting side effect. Because while the internet presents the illusion of abundance, this illusion has begat less effort from both of the sexes, resulting in a rapid and continued physical deterioration of the sexes. And ironically, even though you can meet anybody online in the world, this deterioration in beauty standards has created in an impasse where only a tiny fraction of the massive effort men and women put into online dating translates into a real-world date. And therefore with it being so hard to land a date in the real world, with little hope that person is going to be who they represent themselves to be online, many people give up any hope of flipping a digital relationship into a real-life one. This then relegates these people to the digital world for their love lives. They are further incentivized to remain there as things like “swiping right” is easier than “hitting the gym.” And when you consider that social media has grown to such an extent there is a whole world online, replete with effective and functional digital social lives, even romantic ones, the temptation for many people is to remain there, ne'er setting foot in the real world again. And so ironically, even though this online world with its false promises of “unlimited abundance” was the cause of all these problems, a significant percentage of the modern day population will cowardly resort to... Fifth, a substitute good. Specifically, replacing traditional, real world relationships with digital fake ones. And here you can see a Twilight Zone nightmare, eerily similar to the movie “Surrogates,” where all your relationship needs are met online

with digital substitutes. If a man wants sex he doesn't have to hit the gym or ask 10 girls out, to hopefully court 3, of which 1 he'll inevitably sleep with. He can just spend 2 minutes jerking off to porn, and save himself weeks of time and hundreds of dollars. Or if he wants the real thing he can go to a sugar daddy site and essentially rent himself a mistress by the month. If a man needs attention, he doesn't have to develop a personality, build a career, or improve himself as a man. He can just go to FansOnly and for a monthly subscription fee have his favorite camgirl text him how much she loves him and enjoys his (virtual) company. If a man needs to find a date he doesn't have to come up with something quick and clever on the fly before that girl catches her train. He can just sit on the toilet and swipe right. And if you want to go on a date, why chore yourself by physically going somewhere? Find a girl online, go on Skype or Zoom, and form yourself a “Coromance” (a romance formed online during Corona). Never mind you'll never meet the girl in person as she's too afraid to leave her safe and secure digital world. But neither of you were there for any of that “real-world in person stuff” anyway. Certainly men are settling for a substitute good through the internet, but this alternative digital reality has huge ramifications for ROI of women as well. And beyond what was discussed above, men REALLY need to understand just what a game-changer the internet is. Because while men might get their porn fix online or their attention fix from a webcam girl, women can now get EVERYTHING THEY WANT FROM A MAN without having to meet him. If a girl wants attention, she doesn't have to dress up, look cute, or go out in public. She just posts “I'm feeling so ugly today” on

Instagram and a flood of “OHHHH NOO, YOU'RE SO BEAAUUUTIFUL!!!!” messages will come from the THOUSANDS of simps following her. If a girl wants a meal, she doesn't have to go work for it. She can swipe right on enough guys' profiles and in 3 hours be eating sushi. If a girl needs money, she doesn't need to wife up and marry some well-to-do guy. She just has to go down to Best Buy, drop $250 on some webcam equipment, set up a Paypal account, and show her titties on the internet. Maybe, even going to the extreme lengths of getting her lighting right. And even though women have 1/9th the sex drive men do, if they're in need of a good fucking, all they have to do is go online, find a good-looking guy, swipe right and unless she's really ugly, what guy is going to deny her? The end result is that the internet has allowed women to digitally compile a synthetic superman, capable of satiating her every want and desire, and is superior to you or any other individual man in all regards. If she needs money there are billions of men out there, at least some of which have more money than you. If she needs a meal, there are billions of men out there, at least some of which can afford better restaurants than you. If she needs attention there are billions of men out there, at least some of which who are more charming and better conversationalists than you. And if she just needs a good fucking there is always somebody hotter, taller, and more ripped than you up to the challenge. There is no one man, but the best of all men in each regard compiled into one digital being. An undefeatable Voltron of sorts that no individual man can outcompete. And that is why the ROI on the pursuit of women will go down in the future. Forget the fact the illusion of abundance on the internet has

rendered most people ugly. Forget that both men and women are heavily disincentivized to become what the other wants. These certainly lower the ROI (of each other, in fact) on their own. It's the fact you are competing against this digital synthetic superman who will likely keep women off the market well past the age of 35, to the point they'll be desperately freezing their eggs. And while no doubt the welfare state, careerism, and all the man-hating feminists in the world are actively lowering the ROI of the pursuit of women as well, they all pale in comparison to this synthetic superman the internet has provided women.

CHAPTER 10 – THE STRATEGY Taking in all the statistics, numbers, and chances, as well as considering there's another entire sex involved with their own preferences and desires, you'll realize that any strategy you're going to use to increase your ROI in the pursuit of women is going to at least partly employ stoicism. The truth is you don't even control 10% of these statistics or the forces behind them. Nor do you control 50% of the participants in this dance. And admitting this reality is a critical first step in accurately assessing the challenge that lays before you. And so while when it comes to strategy it would be nice to say: “Do X and do Y” “Don't do A, but definitely do C” “But if she does Q, then absolutely do K,” there's only a handful of strategies for a young man in 2020 to play the incredibly shitty hand he's been dealt.

No, You Are Not Insane The first step is to realize that, no, you are not insane. What you are experiencing today is not normal, is not acceptable, and that voice you hear in the back of your head saying “something's wrong” is 100% right. Previous to the internet, men didn't have a central depository or forum by which to compare notes. Sure they would discuss amongst themselves. Sure, they'd exchange observations about their girlfriends or their wives with the guys at the factory. But most men

for the most part would assume it was a localized phenomenon, or at least specific to them. This meant any problems a man had with his wife/women was squarely his fault and therefore it was up to him to correct the error of his ways. That is until now. Because 20 years of the internet has provided us with the largest, open-source, sociological study on women. And with terabytes of data and unlimited case studies through blogs, posts, vlogs, etc., a fully-functional model has been created, explaining the incentives, preferences, desires and behaviors of women (I'd recommend “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi to see a best-attempt at explaining this functional model). But more importantly, it has exposed a hypocrisy within society. Specifically, the contradiction between what society tells both men and women about each other, versus what nature has made us to be. You have 2 million years of your ancestors' experiences culminating into the instincts, preferences, and desires that you have today. And for 99.999% of those 2 million years, you have wanted a svelte wife, who would give you some kids, support you, and maybe even love you in return. That is now running headlong into what social-science charlatans, political activists, and marketers have decided what women should want for the past cheap 50 years. And no matter what the completely fabricated “social science” rationale they come up with is, it does not undo your programming or your 2 million years of human evolution (nor women's). “Feminism,” “socialism,” “careerism,” and dating advice columns be damned. Men and women haven't changed. And while the whole world may be telling women they don't need men and that they can internally derive all their purpose and meaning and life from themselves, all of that is lies. And the proof is in the low-quality women they're demanding you marry into that we've discussed before: 40% of single women being moms is just not acceptable.

Celebrating a 60% overweight rate among young women is delusional. It is not acceptable behavior to stand up or flake on a date, let alone at a 70% rate. A 25% minimum serious STD infection rate is mind-blowing. A cultish addiction and obsession with one's career is simply insane. And choosing work over children, family, a husband, or love is inhuman. No, you are not insane. Women today are objectively wrong about what matters most in life, and their life decisions which have led to the creation of the poor dating options you face proves it. It may not be what you wanted to hear, but at least you know (in this one regard anyway) you're not the one with the problem. Align Your Expectations with Reality Perhaps the most common question I get in my consultancy is young men asking “How do I find a quality girl?” To which I answer, “You don't.” And it isn't because of cynicism or pessimism. It's just statistics. It's merely reality. Out of the 44 million women out there, only 2.72% are estimated not to have any major deal-breakers. This leaves 1.2 million women to be fought over by the equal population of 44 million marrying-age men. And keep in mind this says nothing about personality or chemistry. Just whether she doesn't have 5 tattoos, a ton of student debt, an STD, and some other guy's kid in tow. By musical chair math, at minimum 97% of men are just not going to find a wife that will make them happy. And though there are certainly things you can do to increase your chances, it is absolutely necessary for the sake of your own mental health that you acknowledge and realize the statistical reality of the women before you. Thankfully, however, there is a bit of good news in that you are not going up against 44 million George Cloonies to compete for those

1.2 million women. As mentioned before, when you look at the statistics of men they are not much better. But men need to understand that there has never been a time in human history where women have been so purposely and artificially conditioned to become so unmarriageable or so anti-family. Women today are programmed to be workers, taxpayers, debtors, and socialists. They are not programmed to be supporting wives or loving mothers. Men need to accept this reality. Men need to adapt to this new normal. Not hope and dream that someday they will win the “Quality Woman Lottery.” Because if they don't, they will doom themselves to a life of misery. Leave a Line in the Water In spite of the statistics, your natural biological programming is still going to compel you to chase after girls anyway. And truth be told, there's actually nothing better to do in life. It really is the only game in town, it's a fun game, and it's better than any Xbox game you'll play. But if you're going to do it, do it wisely just like we discussed about playing the lottery. And thus we can all learn from the story of “Black Calamity Jane.” “Black Calamity Jane” is a female friend of mine of the black persuasion. And her story is as interesting as her name. Originally hailing from New England, she grew up under an effete upper-middle income liberal black household that the democrat party officially allowed them to have. However, while her family may have been the officially approved and sanctioned “liberal black household,” she was a rootin' tootin' six-gun shootin' American girl who loved her guns, loved America, and loved Texas barbeque. She wanted to find a man, and by god, she was going to find him. And so being smarter than the average bear, she casted a very wide, but equally fine net on her dating app. She set the range to all of the United States, but was VERY clear that she was looking for a husband, looking for a Christian, who must love guns, and must be

serious about settling down. And upon finding 6 potential suitors across all the fruited plains, she bought an RV and traveled to different gun shows and barbeque competitions to meet these various men. Six months later, she inevitably found her true love and married him. Of course...they still ended up divorced, but the point still remains about the efficacy of her strategy. Even though online dating is a toxic, cancerous, demoralizing timesuck, the technological abilities of online dating empowers the individual to cut to the chase. If you are a man who is serious about marriage (or finding a quality girl), you can simply declare your intentions online, set a fine, but wide net, and the internet will do the work for you. This, however, necessitates a change in dating strategy. You need to realize that just because a girl may live 500 miles away, doesn't mean she isn't dateable or marriage material. And by the time you factor in going out with a dozen local unqualified bi-polar girls, it costs you more to date locally than out of state. And had you spent the *whopping* $200 to fly out and meet a genuinely qualified girl, you'd not only stand a better chance of finding love, but you'd avoid the pain, agony, and suffering of dating the local, but conveniently located, trash. This isn't to say to pin your entire hopes on online dating, but rather to leverage the technology it offers to thoroughly and rapidly screen for that 1.2 million qualified girls who are out there. Stop wasting time entertaining a coffee date with some average girl who “has $100,000 in student debt for her social work degree” just because she's within a 20 minute drive. Take that time instead to purposely and mathematically zero in on the country-wide supply of quality women looking for a traditional relationship with a real man. And

upon finding such a promising candidate, be willing to do the least of courtesies and drop the money to fly out to meet her. Pursue Excellence Dire as the statistics might be, you are not dead either. You're still here. And while you would have liked an order of “Traditional Wife with a Side of Kids,” that option is just not on the menu of life. This presents every man a choice about his life - what are you going to do with it now? And while there are a limitless number of things you can do in life (boating, fishing, motorcycles, hunting, etc.) all these non-wife/non-family things fall into two general camps: debauchery and excellence. Debauchery is pretty much what every young man has settled for today. Most men have given up on life, become slovenly, don't work out, and waste their lives living in an alternate reality online. They play video games more than they work. They spend more time watching porn than they do with real girls. And when you consider the student loan bubble as well as historically high rent prices, most of them can barely support themselves financially, often times living at home. The bright spot in their lives are usually a cheap vice be it junk food, pot, or booze. And though an easy, even blissfully ignorant life, when they die their lives will have ultimately been wasted because they achieved nothing and did nothing. But if you prefer not to waste your life, and demand that this infinitesimally small blip of existence not be squandered, then the other choice is “excellence.” Though women were the fuel that historically prompted men to achieve their best, men have to pursue excellence whether there is a muse invigorating them to do so or not And the reason has nothing to do with anything philosophically noble or lofty. It's really more about economics – you're here. You got about 78 years on this planet. And if it isn't a wife and kids, then what are you going to do

with all that time? And while debauched men who choose the easy path in life will squander it, men who choose excellence will achieve the most important thing in life outside of love. A legacy. What that legacy is, is up to the individual man. But it is important to understand that a legacy is not so that a man is egotistically “remembered.” It's that he didn't squander his life and he made it count. His life was not the typical one that was no materially different than the tens of billions of men who died before him. It was a life full of accomplishments, achievements, and successes as well as challenges, failures, and pain. A journey that told an interesting tale of a man who had agency, took control of his life, overcame challenges, and wrestled success and achievement out of life. And while for some that may mean climbing Mount Everest or escaping poverty or building a business, your average man can pursue excellence in 7 general categories (though this is obviously not an exhaustive list). And though not the “loving wife and kids” you wanted, this is the next best use of your life: Physique – Staying in excellent physical shape is not just good for your health, but it is your statement to the world that you are going to insist on excellence as physique is visually identifiable. It is also making the declaration that you have discipline, control, and are willing to put forth the effort to achieve your goals. Certainly there is a bit of vanity in this pursuit as who doesn't like looking sexy, but maintaining physical shape is one of the key traits that separate debauched men from excellent ones. Profession – Every man needs a profession. Not just so he can bring value to society, but so that he knows he has value. This doesn't mean a man's value only comes from his job. You can be a good uncle, a great friend, or a good Samaritan. But for the most part, the biggest contribution you will make to society is your profession. It doesn't have to be a highly-compensated profession.

It doesn't have to be anything exciting. But whatever it is, you must be excellent at it as it's the number one way you will leave your mark in society. So when people ask about you, others will say, “He was a great plumber.” “He was a great accountant.” “He was a great programmer.” giving you pride over the course of your life and career. Adventure – Every American is going to: go to college go into debt for an overpriced car overeat and get fat visit, but not hike the Grand Canyon and watch TV for fun. Life is too short and too precious for that. Every man must have adventure in his life. However, this isn't to say you go on an adventure to brag that you “traveled the world” or “biked across America.” Adventure is a statement as to how you define your life as it's what you do with your most precious resource – free time. It's the paint that excellent men use to create their mural of life. And like any work of art it takes effort, which once again separates debauched men playing a “mountain climbing video game” versus that of excellent men hiking a real one. Of course, you don't have to be some adrenaline junkie, jumping out of planes, shark-hunting, or tornado chasing. But having a handful of adventures colors your life and breathes life into it. Don't be the guy who says, “Yeah, we binged on 'Breaking Bad' this summer.” Be the guy who says, “Yeah, I rafted from Rock Springs, Wyoming to the Hoover Dam.” Besides, you have nothing better to do.

Comradery – Friends are the only other social outlet you will have aside from your romantic partner. And even better than most romantic partners, you can be honest with your friends. Your friends don't want to fuck you. Your friends don't want your money. Your friends willingly choose to hang out with you, because you're you. This is the single greatest compliment a person can receive because other people are willingly choosing to spend their most valuable resource on you – their time. But friends are also a confirmation that you are a good man. That you have not wasted your time. That you have invested in yourself to become a person that compels others to want to hang out with you. And therefore if you want to have excellent friends, you have to first make sure you are an excellent person. You will never find a higher ROI in life than having quality friends. That pursuit alone is worth choosing the path of excellence. Passion – Though the word is overused, every man should have a passion outside of his profession, even his family. Something that you truly excel at and can put your heart and soul into. It could be cooking, art, or rebuilding classics cars, but something that when you're done there is a physical product at the end. In the ideal world your passion would be your profession, but it is more likely to be a hobby you pursue in your free time. Regardless, while you're sequestered in your garage or basement, banging away at your passion, ensure to leave the world with at least one magnum opus it can enjoy. Intellectual Pursuit – Hitting the gym, going on adventures, while excelling at your craft is all certainly well and good. But it does nothing for your mind. And unless you have a particular distaste for philosophy or intellectual discussion, every man should have an intellectual endeavor they pursue. It could be researching philosophy itself, mastering stoicism, perhaps understanding economics. It could even be something spiritual like finding religion or merely studying the different religions of the world. But whatever

it is, your mind needs a diet of intelligent thought to grow, not a plate of brain-cancer like Oprah, The Young Turks, or Sports Center. Furthermore, a researched, intellectual man is much more capable of having an intelligent conversation, making him a much more interesting man, and thus of more value to the world. Do not die on this planet as a man only capable of talking about sports. Morality – When you're young, you will likely be poor and foolish, the combination of which will tempt you to cut corners in life. And cutting these corners will often come at other people's expense. It could be an actual crime against somebody, lying to somebody to get what you want, or just being lazy and not putting forth your best effort. But if you play your cards right, what will inevitably happen over time is you will become successful. Money won't be so tight. And you'll rise above the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, allowing your mind to take a break and reflect upon your past. And depending on just how many corners you cut, how many people you hurt, or just how poorly you behaved in the past will determine how heavy a burden of guilt you will carry with you for the rest of your life. It may not make sense now, but to enjoy an excellent life your conscience needs to be clean. And while no man lives a sinless life, try to commit as few sins along the way so you do not burden your mind, lessening your life in the future. The Irony “Chase excellence, not women.” -Rich Cooper, Author of “The Unplugged Alpha” While the tone of this book is no doubt dour, cynical, even defeatist, there is a bit of ironic hope. Because in abandoning women for the pursuit of excellence, you ironically dramatically increase your chances of success with women. Because while things like morality, passion, adventure, and physique are worthy of pursuing in their own

rights, attaining those things will forge you into a man most women want. Women don't want supplicant, obedient, sensitive, conformist, feminist men. They want (as they've always wanted) strong, successful, rich, independent men who answer to no one and strike their own path in life. Therefore, in a counter-intuitive sense, if you want to get women, the key is not to chase them, but instead ignore them and focus on building up yourself. And in doing so you ironically do more to increase your ROI in the pursuit of women by not pursuing them at all. To prove this just consider three variables, all of which are under your control and fall under the realm of excellence: Looks Income Effort Thus far, all the statistics and scenarios we've ran in this study are assuming you're the “Average Joe 5.” But the “Average Joe 5” in America is a loser. He lives at home or at least on a government/parental subsidy. He's overweight, incapable of running a mile. He's a coward, incapable of walking up to a woman and making his intentions known. And instead of putting forth the effort to forge himself into what women want, he takes the easy way out, opting instead to eat Cheetos, play video games, and get lost in a digital world that really doesn't exist. Besides, feminism has told him women don't need him anyway. So you can't really blame the guy. But what if he were to hit the gym? What if he were to go to night school and learn to code or wrench on diesel engines? What if he learned to ballroom dance and asked out at least 10 women per month? When you factor in these variables (looks, income, and effort), men are not powerless beings, incapable of influencing or controlling their

destiny. They wield significant control over their success with women. And if a man were to invest in three things: Work out to the point he's an 8. Go to school/training to the point he makes $65,000 a year. Ask out 1,000 girls over the course of his life he drastically increases his chances of finding success with women. If a man takes the 85 minutes a day he spends on dating apps and instead works out, puts on decent clothes, and presents himself as an 8, nearly all women will find him attractive. This increases a man's chances of success with women by 500%. If men dedicate a fraction of the effort they do on video games to an employable trade or skill, your average man can easily earn $65,000 which seems to be the magic number women need men to earn before committing to them. Attaining this level of income increases your chances with women by 514%. But perhaps the single biggest factor in man's success with women is how much effort he puts into the pursuit of them. I understand asking women out, getting shot down, and getting rejected is not fun. But boring and unromantic as it may be, the pursuit of women really is just a sales job. And the more doors you knock on, the more success you will have. And assuming 10% of women you ask out go on a date, if the average guy were to ask out 1,000 girls over the course of his life, 100 of which agree to go out with him, he increases his chances of being happily married by 3,300%. You combine all these factors together, and commit to achieving excellence in these regards, you increase your overall chances by 850 times (and if you're willing to lie about being a democrat, it goes up to 1,400 times) putting the goal of being happily married well within the realm of feasibility.

And this is the most important lesson to learn from this entire study. Pursuing today's modern women is a near-guaranteed waste of your life. Most modern women are not capable of a traditional or happy marriage, more or less being completely indoctrinated and programmed to love their careers, educations, and themselves more than any other human being. And while you are hardwired to chase, capture, and fall in love with women, you need to have the intellectual fortitude to acknowledge your chances of success are very low, and prepare for the very real contingency that you may not find a loving wife. Alas, you only live once, and with no other point or purpose in life, you need to place excellence at the core of your life. But in the ultimate of ironies, in doing so you will dramatically increase your chances of finding “true love” and “happiness.” So much so, if you're willing to put in the effort, being happily married is a very real and likely possibility. Thus, the only course of action men have in life is to be the best man they can possibly be. This way you not only maximize your chances of success with women, but failing that you ensured you did not waste your one and only finite life, leaving a legacy of excellence, making the only thing you had in the universe count. Make sure you live your life to the best extent possible. And if some nice, sweet girl happens along the way, all the more power to you. THE END

ONLINE MODEL AND DOWNLOADABLE CHARTS FOR AUDIBLE LISTENERS The model used in this study will be uploaded online to: www.assholeconsulting.com/mychances For a rather low price, it will allow people to plug in their own variables like looks, income, education, etc., to see what their various statistics and chances are. Additionally, for audio-book listeners a PowerPoint that contains all the charts and graphs in “The Book of Numbers” is available for download here: www.assholeconsulting.com/data

VISIT THE AUTHOR! If you found this interesting please check out some of Aaron's other works and sites below! Consulting: www.assholeconsulting.com Books: https://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/ Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/aaron-clarey/ Blog: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey

OTHER BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR How Not to Become a Millennial: A postmortem analysis of the largest sociological disaster in American history – the Millennials – that pulls vital lessons for ALL GENERATIONS to learn.

Bachelor Pad Economics: The financial advice bible for men that address all major and minor

financial decisions a man will make from the age of 14 to 74.

Curse of the High IQ: A book that delves into the maddening problems of being a smart person in a world designed for the common and average.

Worthless – The Young Person’s Indispensable Guide to Choosing the Right Major: Make sure you or a loved one doesn’t waste 4 years and $100,000 on a worthless degree that will financially cripple you into your 40’s.

The Black Man’s Guide Out of Poverty: A sole, single book that has raised more black men out of poverty than all the democrat party ever did.

Poor Richard’s Retirement: Retirement for everyday Americans, especially those who haven’t started saving for it yet.

Sanity is the Future of Wealth A short, but vitally important economic and philosophical essay about how technology and innovation will effectively eliminate poverty. But instead of celebrating this success, it will drive people insane as simple human jealousy will drive people to become envious over pettier and pettier things.

Achieving Minimalism in Theory and Practice – The Key to Success and Happiness in Life This is a seminar, not a book, available through Teachable.com. It is simply designed to get people to spend less than they make. It is VERY EXPENSIVE…but so is bankruptcy, student debt, and failing to save for retirement.

Research, Data, and Resources: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/contemplatingdivorce/201709/are-you-among-the-growing-number-unhappymarried-people https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/average-weightfor-women https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_318.30.asp https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/genderrelated-differences-in-credit-use-and-credit-scores-20180622.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminismproject/poll/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/07/61-of-u-s-womensay-feminist-describes-them-well-many-see-feminism-asempowering-polarizing/ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17480930/millennial-womendemocrats-midterms https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/families/cps2019.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6347139/ https://medium.com/daliaresearch/who-has-the-most-tattoos-its-notwho-you-d-expect-1d5ffff660f8 https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-poll-tattoos-arent-just-forrebels-anymore https://www.foxnews.com/us/fox-news-poll-tattoos-arent-just-forrebels-anymore https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/southjersey/2018/07/17/national-tattoo-day-south-jersey-show-ustattoos/791417002/ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Financial-Hardship-andObesity-%3A-The-Link-between-AverettSmith/202a475087aed36e8cd4a6ee7e0a5ecca27bfda4/figure/3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692249/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3852604/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913935/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1440783318755017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6982282/ https://towardsdatascience.com/117-days-of-tinder-in-data755fe9ed853e https://www.reference.com/world-view/statistics-body-piercingf5db4efae39e98ef https://blog.bodyjewelry.com/statistics-of-body-piercings-in-the-u-s/ https://flowingdata.com/2017/11/01/who-is-married-by-now/ https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/marriagblemen-release.pdf https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/incomepoverty/cps-hinc/hinc-01.html https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-sex-calculator/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-bysex-and-age/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/prediction-no-graduation-speakerwill-mention-the-29-gender-college-degree-gap-for-the-class-of2018/ https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guysunless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wastingyour-2ddf370a6e9a https://www.vox.com/2018/3/21/17144602/gender-gap-democratliberal-women https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17480930/millennial-womendemocrats-midterms https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminismproject/poll/ https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/401804-poll-less-than-half-offemale-millennials-identify-as-feminists https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/average-weightfor-women https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/young-women-have-higher-creditscores-but-carry-30-percent-more-debt.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/families/cps2019.html

https://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics_and_Living_Toget her https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2017/04/13/hereshow-much-average-single-americans-spend-on-their-dating-life/ https://www.gobankingrates.com/saving-money/budgeting/howmuch-average-american-spends-daily/#7 https://smartasset.com/checking-account/millennial-moneyspending-habits https://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-average-americanspends-on-cars-in-every-state-2019-7#missouri-4092-26 https://www.credible.com/blog/statistics/average-time-to-repaystudent-loans-statistics/ https://www.theknot.com/content/how-much-to-spend-onengagement-ring https://www.statista.com/statistics/309461/us-adults-online-datingsite-usage-age/