The people who pursue and practice and the ones who don’t

I was reading about lifetime sex partner patterns for men and women, and how it is that men can report more lifetime average partners, and a thought bubbled up… most people never systematically improve their skills at sex, seduction, etc., and there’s a really huge gap between those who pursue systematic improvement in almost any domain… and those who do not (most people). Today, guys are lucky to live in a time when the means for systematic improvement are readily available online, which was not true for most of human history. For all the bitching about women and feminism, there has never been a better time in history, fucking EVER, for an average guy to rack up lays, assuming he wants to do that.

The question is whether he both wants to get laid and wants to pursue getting laid in an effective way. There is a really huge gap between people who pursue the game in a disciplined, systematic, effective way, and people who don’t (most guys). Almost no one talks about the role of intentional practice in improving performance, but it is there. I myself have not gone as far as I might in trying to improve my game… I have not, for example, bought wireless mics and recorded cold approaches for later analysis, which is a good way of figuring out what is working and what is not. If you have ever been involved in sales with a telephone component, you have probably recorded your calls in order to make sure you’re not f**king anything up. Then, to maximize your likely success. If you move the needle from a 5% to an 8% success rate, you will still fail most of the time, but you will succeed 62% more than you would have otherwise.

Chicks, of course, don’t have to do things like record and analyze their “sets,” because they’re the buyers, not the sellers, and if they’re smart they know how to improve their own diet, exercise, etc…. things that most chicks don’t bother doing, and it shows.

It’s possible to be an attractive guy with sociable hobbies and a willingness to tolerate rejection and do well at the game almost accidentally, especially when young and in school. But I think a lot of that gap in lifetime lays today is just a question of who perseveres, learns, improves, and keeps improving their game, versus who thinks that some guys are just “naturals” and that there is no possibility of improvement. If you believe you cannot improve, you are right. If you believe you can improve, you are also right.

There’s also more than one way up the game mountain, and guys who find one way blocked should choose alternate routes. Today everyone is online, so that route could be harder than it was five or ten years ago (that is my observation and experience). So maybe cold approach and in-person meeting has become more attractive as the average person’s social skills degrade and the average person becomes more autistic because of excess phone time. The average person is constantly on their phone, so maybe not being on your phone and paying attention to the world around you is a way to pursue an alternative route. Many daygame guys talking online (probably a minority of the guys doing game…) disparage using money as a component of game, but I do believe some guys do that effectively. A guy driven by ego probably doesn’t want to use money as a component, but a guy who is driven by f**king might want to.

Regardless of the way, practice and growth mindset are important and most guys have neither.

Location-independent businesses are rarer than online seminar hucksters would have you believe

I see a lot of unlikely claims by guys online about location independence, independent income, etc…. they’re improbable, not impossible, but I worry about the low-information guys who are attracted to “location independence” but who don’t have the unique, non-commodity skills to get there.

The commodity / non-commodity concept comes from economics: in a perfectly competitive market, commodities move to the price of marginal production and distribution cost. Think of something like steel: a given grade of steel is a given grade of steel and is completely undifferentiated; if producer A can make steel $1 cheaper than producer B, the market will move towards producer A until producer A’s capacity is exhausted. In many fields workers are a lot like this. If you are working fast food, retail, etc., you are competing with a vast pool of local and sometimes global labor, and you are interchangeable with thousands, sometimes millions, of other people. You will likely not be able to command above-average wages without differentiated skills.

If you don’t have the attention and cognitive skills to read the above paragraph, or if you find it boring, you are not going to make it as a location-independent worker.

In most cases, people have to work for many years to develop differentiated skills, as well as the industry connections needed to deploy those skills effectively. Programming is a common example of this, but most programmers take many years to develop their skills, and many people lack the IQ necessary to be a programmer (that is why so many programmers with three years of industry experience and a CS degree make six figures… most people literally cannot do the work). There are many other examples. To become a doctor takes four years of college, then four years of medical school, then three years of residency. At the end you are a highly differentiated worker, but you are not location independent (mostly).

There are many other kinds of differentiated skills, but most of the guys pitching online seminars don’t have those skills and haven’t demonstrated those skills, though they often claim to have them. Something about the online world encourages a set of magical beliefs that you can, without real skills, learn how to make large amounts of money. Pretty f**kin unlikely.

So how does most of the world really work? Unless you are founding a tech startup or working for one of the big tech companies, it is very hard to make very large amounts of money right out of the gate (say, ages 22 – 30). Even tech founders and workers see much larger financial gains 10+ years in. Most people spend their early career building skills and building connections. Many people focus, wrongly, only one of those things. If you build skills without connections, you may have lots of skills, but you don’t have a way to leverage them. A couple years ago I wrote, Company loyalty is dead. Switch jobs every 18 months to two years [Career]. If you don’t build connections you will have a harder time switching jobs and getting the pay bumps from job switches.

To get 50%+ pay increases, you basically have to switch jobs. There is something in human psychology called “anchoring.” Once an “anchor” is set as a reference point, it’s very hard to re-set it. If your job at an organization is paying you $45,000, you are unlikely to get above $50,000 even if you are generating $100,000 of value for the organization. If you switch jobs you may be able to go up to $75,000 or more at the new organization. Then it’s possible, in two years, to go BACK to the old org, show them your $75,000, and negotiate for $90,000. Or $110,000. Six figures is another psychological barrier.

Switching jobs effectively usually requires connections, however, as well as a portfolio, if possible. So if you have skills but no connections, you retard your ability to get the new gig. If you develop connections without having skills, you may try to get jobs but then not be able to do them. Sometimes this works, as most of us have found worthless people in high-level jobs, but it is best if you have both. It’s like dating, you might be able to find the rare hot chick who is into a typical fat video gamer with limited ambition… it’s just going to be super rare to find her, and if you want success with women you’re better off doing the typical things, developing yourself, lifting, improving your social life, chatting up chicks, etc.

Markets are very efficient. Not perfectly efficient, but very efficient. So if you try to do “location independent business” without real skills, you are running into efficient markets without sufficient specialization, which is a recipe for stagnation. There are arbitrage opportunities out there… Someone who speaks flawless Mandarin and English might be able to exploit some. A random guy who is hearing about THE DREAM of getting out of the corporate grind… probably can’t.

The guys who make it with location independence have often built up non-commodity knowledge and execution ability. So many claims online are very implausible without being utterly impossible, and the guys who want to believe, want to believe so bad that they’re willing to blind themselves to reality.

Lots of guys reap most of their income gains between ages 35 and 55. By 35, information and reputation advantages have compounded sufficient to allow smart guys who are good workers to acquire the in-depth knowledge necessary to command high salaries. Most guys have also gained sufficient reputation in their industry to be known as a good worker. Very few unknown quantities get hired for mid- or high-level jobs. Too risky. You have to prove yourself first. Guys making good money usually have good skills, they’ve proven themselves, and they have good reputations. All things that are hard to do via online, location-independent businesses.

Being a guy is a relentless process of proving yourself. When two guys get together, they size each other up… is this other guy for real? Or is he full of shit? One problem with online gurus is that you can’t see them solve problems in real time. When you can do that… you really learn about a man. Whether he is effective or not. It is possible to seem effective without being effective… I have had to fire people like that before.

With chicks, you are seeing if they are for real… do they actually want sex… do they look the way they seem to online… etc. Often they are not for real.

I think there are more guys trying to sell “Location independent” seminars than there are guys who are in location independent businesses.

A lot of what you encounter online is really marketing and dreams, not reality. I think that reality-based persons are not spending that much time online, which is so often a waste of time (for me as well). There are a lot of attractive but unlikely claims being made online, and you are welcome to believe them if you want, but you are going to suffer if you believe the stories a lot of guys are selling.

To reiterate, you need to BUILD SKILLS and preferably industry knowledge and industry connections too. Most people do NONE of those things and as a consequence their careers suck. Most people eat too much sugar, get too little exercise, and watch too much TV, and therefore their bodies and their lives suck.

Most guys are going to make more money in conventional businesses and government than they are going to make in the wilds of the Internet… this is also why most smart guys are NOT going to come out as game experts or Red Pill guys. That’s a good way to lose your footing in the corporate and government worlds. That’s a good way to retard your earnings, maybe permanently. Once you are identified without ideologies too far outside the Overton Window, you may be permanently f**ked from earning the largest amounts of money. I would like to change the Overton Window, but the very first thing a game guy needs to do is recognize reality (or have a force of determination so strong that he creates his own reality… a lot of the best players seem to believe their own hype, which leads to success with chicks).

It’s totally true that you may be the exception who makes more money online than you will in most corporate jobs. But if you don’t have exceptional reasons to think you’re the exception, you’re probably the rule, and your career is going to reflect that. This isn’t as sexy a post as EARN SIX FIGURES ONLINE, LET ME SHOW YOU HOW, so the guys who really need it probably aren’t going to find it, but I want a single place to point the bullshit generators to when it’s time. I want readers to know also that I never said having an online, location-independent business is impossible (it’s not). Trying to build one without unique skills and strong connections is just very very unlikely and is contrary to how most business really works. I get the impression that most guys pitching one-man businesses either lack business experience OR have it, know what they’re pitching is bullshit, and pitch it anyway to separate the unwary or hopeful guy from his cash.

“Three Women” hamster, by Lisa Taddeo

Three Women Hamster” is a better title, and it’s a pretty Red Pill book… the upshot of the book’s story is that women don’t control themselves and aren’t really responsible for their actions (men are responsible for women’s actions, WTF?). Men are responsible for everything women do, including the things women want to deny, and are responsible for making women happy. It’s kinda fascinating to read a woman who is (inadvertently?) arguing that women are irresponsible, so what they say and do can’t be trusted. But that’s how a lot of women in real life present themselves… think about every time you’ve heard a woman argue that “it doesn’t count” for some reason or other. How the guys she dates are all dogs… “Do you ever hit on a guy overtly?” “No, ew, it’s the guy’s responsibility to make the first move.” Meaning, all the moves…

I embrace that fact, but many guys who have bought into the feminism fed to us by the public school system do not, yet then they wonder why they have sub-par sex lives. “Three Women” is about three chicks: one of them, Maggie, f**ks her high school teacher and then regrets it later. Another is living with her loser husband, loses a bunch of weight, and starts an affair. The last one is/was hot (she is in her 40s?) and her husband likes group sex and especially her f**king other men.

The first chick, Maggie, is the least interesting because she is straightforward: she f**ks her high school teacher, regrets it years later, and then tries to imprison him and ruin his life, then blames him for her own life going poorly. Extremely bad female behavior, but not atypical either. This is a woman who should read Ayn Rand and actualize her own life, but she won’t, not when there’s a man to blame and a government to demand handouts from. The second one, Lina, is a woman with a husband who won’t kiss her and has terrible sexual skills in general. Her story is also uninteresting because if you marry someone and won’t f**k them or be intimate with them, they’re going to go somewhere else for physical and emotional needs. And they should. If a man wrote a story about how his wife wouldn’t kiss him and would only have reluctant duty sex with him, all smart guys would tell him to leave her or have affairs. Same situation here. Red Pill guys like to focus on bad female behavior but frequently bad female behavior is a response to bad male behavior.

So the only interesting one is Sloane, the supposedly hot woman, and she has her first threesome, with another chick and her husband, and she likes it, but then she’s like,

Was it normal to like the rest, though? She couldn’t tell too many people. Perhaps, she reasoned, the people she couldn’t tell were the repressed ones and she was the healthy one. But none of the books she read and none of the television shows and films she enjoyed reflected that lifestyle.

If it doesn’t exist in the media and someone else hasn’t done it first, can it be done? Players learn that most women want to submit and be led, and most of the women in this book are typical of that tendency.

This is also why I think sex clubs are becoming more mainstream, as they’re being depicted with greater frequency in the media. I meant to link this sooner, but a dumb thing about the reality TV show The Hills talks about how two characters are now in an open thing,

There was a lot of talk about Brody’s “lifestyle,” which turned out to be code for what Stephanie called his “famous open marriage.”

In another, Mischa was chatting with Kaitlynn, who turned out to have her own beef with Ashley, after Ashley (apparently) said that Kaitlynn and Brody shouldn’t have kids because of their open marriage. “She needs to learn to mind her own business,” Kaitlynn said.

Now, I don’t give a f**k abou a Hills or anything reality-tv related, and neither should ANYONE reading this. It’s total garbage… TV is garbage and reality tv is the garbage of garbage. BUT, importantly, chicks are now seeing, via their preferred medium (pablum TV), depictions of open relationships. That was nowhere ten years ago, and, for the guy working sex clubs into his game repertoire, the path is getting easier. Most people and especially women need models to achieve anything, and now those models are more readily available for basic chicks. This may be bad for civilization but it’s good for players who want to f**k around a lot. We’ve decided, collectively, as a civilization, that individual self-fulfillment and pleasure are the highest and most important values that exist, higher than civilization itself, so we might as well behave accordingly (that’s what hot chicks do… what they do, not always what they say).

Later on in Three Hamsters, Sloane reads 50 Shades of Grey (so cliche) and then she’s cool with group sex. Since that book came out, lots of women have been writing about how it’s cool to cheat on men… something men should remember before they sign the marriage contract. Back to Sloane, her preferences are for “bad boys, bassists, dark messy types who rode motorcycles.” Standard Red Pill advice: “boredom = death.” If you bore a chick you will probably not retain her.

I don’t know why Sloane’s husband likes watching her f**k other guys, but for some reason he does, maybe because he eroticizes the competition. Seems weird to me but I have run into it before and am only too happy to enjoy the fruits.

A lot of guys also get the basics wrong… with some of them, Sloane says, they “stink.” It’s right there on page 218. Guys in the game often emphasize basics… lifting, approach, BASIC grooming, not letting the opportunity pass, having a clean or at least uncluttered apartment. Think of every chick you’ve heard say, “He’s cute, but a slob.” “I left because his sheets smelled.” Chicks are sensitive to these things and if you f**k them up, you will miss lays for no good reason. So many guys don’t shower, don’t use deodorant consistently, then they wonder why nothing’s happening for them. This is why RP guys talk endlessly about the basics, cause so many guys are not doing the basics right. If you don’t do the basics right, you cannot get to the advanced work. You cannot do calculus without algebra.

Naturally the guy she likes f**king best is already married, so then there’s some stupid drama related to that. Yawn. Red Pill knowledge makes a lot of narrative fiction and nonfiction less exciting, cause you can see the woman’s behavior patterns before she can… and you want her to think rationally instead of emotionally… but it doesn’t happen.

If you read “Three Women” Hamster, you will be swimming against a tide of tedious female rationalization and second-guessing, which is annoying enough to hear from a woman whose rationalization and over-thinking can be paid for via sex in real life but is just ridiculous in a book. A whole book of hamstering, which is instead billed as women’s deepest emotional thoughts, may be kind of boring, but it has moments and, if you wish to see the kind of endless emotional glop that goes on in a lot of women’s heads, this book is a look into it.

 

Two kinds of women in non-monogamy: The reluctant and the feral

I see a lot of women involved in various ways in non-monogamy, and the most common kind is a bit of a dabbler, and she’s more into forming relationships than hooking up. For this kind of girl, the kind most guys are familiar with, the girl is picky, random, and favors threeways and groups in theory, but she’s basically not that into it. In the right mood with the right situation, she’ll go for it, but more often than not she puts the brakes on things. This kind of girl is common apps, where her boyfriend is really directing things, and she’s just along for the ride… she might authorize some chitchat and send a “naughty” pic or two, but when it comes time to meet the other couple disappear, or something comes up and can they reschedule some other time?, etc. They’re like a lot of chicks players meet… they seem like prospects but fizzle out for reasons internal to them.

This type of girl is basically monogamous at heart, and for that reason she can also be dangerous if you’re cohabitating with her, or if you think you’re in a serious relationship with her… for her, non-monogamy may be a step in the branch-swing process. She finds another guy she likes, probably without the boyfriend’s approval, and because they’ve been to a few sex clubs, it doesn’t count, so why not go on that date with him, see where things lead… then she tells the boyfriend they’ve grown apart and she moves hard on the other guy.

That doesn’t always happen of course, and sometimes she’s just not that into the excitement of other people, so she’ll only be into switching if everything lines up for her (usually it doesn’t).

The other kind of girl is a true slut (in the sex-positive sense of the word) who loves f**king and f**king in groups. Her default answer is yes and her default mode is towards more f**king. This type of girl is rarer, but, if you can find a hot one of this type, she can make an insane, unbelievable partner in the scene. I have met several like this. This type of girl usually also feels limited or no jealousy, or, if she feels jealousy, she gets it f**ked right out of her.

This second type of girl is also the kind of girl who makes the “what’s your number?” questions irrelevant, as you can end up with huge numbers almost inadvertently just by dating around and going to parties with her. Most doors are open to her. She is typically low drama, and far lower drama than the typical chick.

I’m bringing this up only because, before I became intimate with the second type of girl, I don’t think I fully believed she existed. Maybe I kind of, sort of knew that she was out there somewhere, but now I know she exists, and I also know her power… but also her terror, to other women (for she lowering the “market value” of sex, if you will), and to men who secretly want monogamy from their women (many men do, even the superficially sex-positive ones).

I’m going to call this second kind of chick feral, but, again, in a good way (for my purposes, historically).

The tragedy of type two is that she has a lot of trouble acquiring and maintaining a primary partner. Her life also gets much harder for her as she gets older, if she wants a family, as most women (and people) do. The structure of aging is harder for women than for men in general… a guy who keeps building his value can have very high value from age 35 – 45 (although this may not be typical). A guy whose interest shifts from partying to family at age 35 will face a very different world than a woman who does the same (as we’ve all seen, if we’re old enough). Type two, the feral type, may also get used to tons of male attention when she’s in her 20s and early 30s, but she’ll likely see that attention drop over time, especially if she’s doing the typical American diet (full of sugar) and lifestyle (drives everywhere, only physical activity is going to and from the refrigerator).

The tragedy of type one is that she attracts a lot of drama of her own, and she turns down many pleasurable adventures that a more daring girl might enjoy. But, on average, chicks are much more reactive than proactive (this is why they’re rarely the founders of companies and rarely move up the ranks of existing companies) and for most chicks, nothing happens if a guy is not there to encourage it to happen. When I was younger I found this strange, and had a lot of conversations with chicks in which I would say, “Why didn’t you just do [obvious thing]?” and the chick would get huffy and say, “I just didn’t!” I’d try to pin her down on why she didn’t and she’d get huffier and angrier. Now I’m wiser in this regard and know that chicks on average are simply passive, and trying to move them out of a pretty narrow range of behaviors is wasteful, like trying to move a hill with a teaspoon.

Type one goes halfway a lot of the time and then stops… she seems like a promising lead, but she doesn’t go anywhere. In her heart and soul she’s closer to a time-waster than not. Smart players, whether they’re doing the game conventionally or non-monogamously, figure out methods and systems to sort time-wasters from non-time-wasters, the same was mineral extraction people figure out how to separate diamonds from dirt. When you find out you’ve got dirt, not diamonds, dump it and keep mining, while you also keep refining your process.

Location and logistics, married guys

A reader asks for more, “I know this is a terrible topic but . . . game for married guys seeking extramarital experiences.”

I don’t think this is my area of expertise but here goes.

Point one is, “Don’t get married,” but that’s already done so we’ll ignore it. Always start from where you are, not where you were five years ago, which is irrelevant to what you should do today. Guys ask, “Is it too old to learn the game?” Who cares, you’ll be older tomorrow than today, so you might as well start now.

Point two is, I don’t think the game changes that much. You still need good fundamentals, you still need to approach, you still need to accept rejections, etc. etc. But if you are married and trying to hide it, you also worry about your approach being rejected and then the woman telling on you to your wife… so why get married, or stay married if you already are married? Sounds like a lot of bullshit.

Big problem for those guys is also probably location and logistics. Good game is tough in suburbs and always will be. Other moms are likely targets. I’m not an expert here, I think, and location is key. If you are ready to escalate, where do you do? How do you do it? Do you have hotel apps on your phone? Do you know where the public bathrooms are for quickies? What’s the pipeline look like?

So you take the basic game… and you make it harder… and then you still play it.

There are a small number of chicks who actively prefer married guys, and a larger but still small number who don’t mind the married guy. Some chicks will actively reject married guys.

I think a lot of married guys just pay for it, for reasons of discretion and availability… if they are paying, incentives between woman and man are aligned.

Writing this out, I’m also worried about this person’s level of imagination… if he has any experience with the basics of game, most of it should be obvious? Amateurs worry about what to say, pros worry about logistics… if he is married, his logistics are probably f**ked. But for some reason I already wrote this out.

You can also do consensual non-monogamy, so read the rest of this blog to find out how.

Americans are lying about their sexual desire: they want more variety and violence than you’ve been led to believe

Proof that Americans are lying about their sexual desires” says that anonymized data shows, “porn featuring violence against women is more popular among women than men.” Yeah, I could tell you that too. Women love rough, violent sex… from the right guy. From the wrong guy they hate and fear it. Who you are determines what she likes. Kind of like what I write in “The Startling Rise of Choking During Sex.”

Most guys don’t get this.

Unless you have read My Secret Garden, like you should have, right? Most guys don’t have the SMV, frame, or experience necessary to get it… if you’re a high SMV guy (to her), she wants to be choked, degraded, and manhandled. If you’re not (to her), she’ll accuse you of rape and write #metoo on her anonymous Twitter, naming you. This is not totally universal but female desire is much stronger and wants much more roughness than most guys know or understand. The roughness has to be done intelligently, like I write in the choking post, and she typically needs a lot of leadup to it and an “out” if she needs it, but if she wants it, she really wants it.

The frame thing is important and so is the SMV. I have had sky-high SMV to some chicks and 0 SMV to others. If she sees you as low SMV there’s probably nothing you can do to change it except move on. She’s not going to be into you. If she sees you as high SMV, you’re more likely to see very positive responses to rough sex (and that’s reported even by a very bluepill, feminized site like Vox.com).

The rough sex thing is a little like I say here, about gifts, and how women disdain gifts given to them by low-value supplicating guys. They LOVE earned gifts from high-value guys who give those gifs as a sign of affection. A sign that, while the guy could be fucking loads of other girls, he’s giving her a stuffed animal or diamond necklace.

Do chicks like gifts? Yes and no. Depends on the circumstances. That’s also why so much game advice is contradictory. It depends too much on context to make it universal. It’s also why a lot of beginner guys post bad advice. They’ve felt the elephant’s tail in a dark room and mistake it for the whole elephant. It’s not.

For guys, the problem is that many women will revise their opinions after she (or the guy) moves on. There’s no way around this, because rough, dominant sex binds a woman to the guy doing the rough sex, like going bar does. You as a guy should explore the woman’s boundaries and push them a little (without going way far over). She needs to feel safe even as she’s exploring what she really likes, and if you don’t ensure the safety too you will have a bad experience and so will she.

Porn featuring violence against women is also extremely popular among women. It is far more popular among women than men. I hate saying that because misogynists seem to love this fact. Fantasy life isn’t always politically correct.

The rate at which women watch violent porn is roughly the same in every part of the world. It isn’t correlated with how women are treated.

What feminists say women want and what actual women want often don’t match up. Remember that when you hear advice from women and especially women who identify as feminists.

This is one of the posts that’s half done, and I need to get it done and out there… I have too many sitting around in note form or partially written. In real life I am executing the lifestyle change that I have been talking about, assuming all goes well… no guarantees of course. As someone said, “The game will always be there” (he can identify himself if he wishes). But a particular woman may not be there… if a woman is smart and has her shit together and has a goal like having a family, she will pursue that goal and nix guys who aren’t going to give it to her. This is somewhat contrary to what you read online, where all chicks are available to a guy with sufficient frame, masculinity, etc. And some chicks will stick around against their better, cold-state judgment… some chicks will not, however. What a guy pursues depends on his stage of life and other factors.

Today there is no reason not to develop rough-sex skills, as you can search for “how do I have rough sex” and begin learning what you should do… you’ll find a lot of garbage but if you take notes and begin experimenting, you should get into the learning feedback loop rapidly.

“The Woman Searching for the Lust She Didn’t Have Before”

The Woman Searching for the Lust She Didn’t Have Before” is more Red Pill advice, but from a woman… this one dumped her fiancé cause “He wanted to have kids right away, move to New Jersey, and just be basic and suburban together. He was a great guy but I would have died in that environment. I’m having so much fun now (more or less).” For chicks and relationships, “Boredom = death,” a fact many guys fail to realize, and chicks just want to have “fun.” Guys whose ideas of fun include security and basic provisioning are not attractive to the vast majority of chicks.

Simultaneously, this chick knows another woman, “She’s 40-something and still looking for ‘Mr. Right.’ I don’t see anything wrong with being single and 40 but I cannot imagine searching for the ‘right’ guy for 15 more fucking years. Life is too short for that!” Yet this chick is probably heading in that direction. Or who knows, she’s going to end up being “poly.” Whatever it is, there is an element of “as you sow, so you shall reap.”

“I think how I really love when a man is strong and aggressive in his kissing. I’m not sure I need/want gentle and loving. I kind of want to be fucked and devoured.” Very much what you’ve been reading about sex techniques in this blog, Red Coco’s blog, etc., about how women like rough and dominant sex and if you’re not doing that you’re probably turning her off.

A lot of chicks, when you really really listen to them, are Red Pill. They just don’t frame it the way Red Pill guys do. What chicks want and what guys really want to do fit together. The problem is that modern feminism and schools (feminist indoctrination camps) try to disable what people instinctually want… then people get in f**ked-up relationships that never really work.

It took me an incredibly long time to recognize the need for rough sex skills. That may be why an appreciable number of chicks prefer older guys, who have learned the ropes.