It is a source of perpetual astonishment how many times I must reiterate a fundamentally simple and evidence-based position to a certain contingent of bitter and intellectually dense followers. My advocacy is, and has always been, built upon a foundation of probability and strategic choice, not the guarantee of perfection.

Let me restate the premise with unequivocal clarity: I advise men to seek partners under the age of 30. This recommendation is grounded in three observable, general trends:

1. They are statistically less likely to possess the accumulated bitterness and confrontational attitudes that can fester with age and negative experiences.

2. They are typically more agreeable and open to a harmonious partnership.

3. They are biologically more fertile, a fact supported by overwhelming medical data on female reproductive health.

Furthermore, for long-term relationships, I advocate for women with a university education—a proxy for intellectual compatibility and discipline—and for those who embrace their natural appearance, as it often correlates with confidence and a rejection of the superficial.

Now, when a specific under-30, such as Regina Daniels, behaves in a manner that is offensively stupid or toxic, I witness the profoundly thick-headed seizing upon it as if it single-handedly dismantles my entire argument. This line of “reasoning” is not just flawed; it is a testament to a staggering lack of critical thought.

Let me be blunt and say anyone who employs this logic in earnest is, frankly, stupid.

To illuminate this with an undeniable analogy: it is an established, statistical fact that air travel is far safer than road travel. Does this fact mean that aeroplanes are incapable of crashing?

Of course not. And when a plane does tragically crash, does that event suddenly invalidate decades of safety data and render road travel safer? The very notion is absurd.

The crash is a tragic exception, an outlier. It does not negate the overarching rule.

Given the overwhelming statistical evidence, it would be profoundly irrational for me, or anyone else, to choose road travel over air travel based on a belief in its superior safety.

My argument operates on the same principle of probability. I am guiding men towards a demographic where the likelihood of finding an agreeable, fertile, and less-toxic partner is significantly higher. It is a strategic choice to improve one’s odds, not a foolproof recipe for infallibility.

If you cannot grasp the basic arithmetic of probability in decision-making and instead foolishly cling to outliers to disprove a general trend, then the problem resides with your cognitive faculties, not with my advice.

Unsurprisingly, it is invariably the bitter over-30s and the perpetually stuck ‘Joe Boys’—those with a vested interest in the failure of this logic—who traffic in these absurd rebuttals.

Regina Daniels is not a case against the general agreeability of women under 30, just as a plane crash in India is not a case against the safety of aviation. She is merely a data point in the column of exceptions that, by definition, every statistical trend must contain.

A wise man plays the probabilities; only a fool is derailed by the outlier.