Embrace the awkward

In the real world, seduction and intersex relationships are often awkward. I didn’t know that when I was younger and I thought that being awkward was a sign of my own ineptness. It wasn’t and instead it was a sign of how things are for most people. Also, who cares how awkward it is if you still have sex?

Most girls actually have shit social skills and don’t know how to act around guys they like and aren’t good conversationalists. So meeting, seducing, and sleeping with them is often awkward because of both parties. Paradoxically, the more a guy embraces and rejoices and accepts the awkward, the smoother many interactions will go.

If you are a guy your job is to assume the sale and keep escalating (in a reasonable way or reasonable time) until you are fucking her or she stops you. The whole process might be awkward but when your dick is in her you don’t care, do you? Escalate until you can’t anymore. Often you will escalate your way right into sex that wouldn’t happen is you stood around waiting for the girl to indicate overt approval (which most girls will never do).

In movies and TV a lot of things are smooth and the characters have witty banter and the sex is magic and everyone comes after three pumps. That’s because Hollywood produces fantasy. In real life shit doesn’t work that way, yet we’re conditioned by watching and absorbing fantasy.

Stories about midlife divorce are cautionary stories about why younger guys shouldn’t marry

You may not believe this, but I think you should read Eat Pray Lovebecause it demonstrates what goes through a woman’s mind when she blows up her relationship and everything that most women are told to strive to accomplish for going off and fucking randoms (that is not how the book is conventionally framed but that is a good reading of it). You also don’t want to marry chicks who are “creative,” because “creative” means she’s a restless slut. Great to f**k, bad to marry.

Once you realize that women are valorized by the culture for both marrying and for divorcing, any residual desire you may feel about marrying should dissipate.

The latest example in this saga is from The Emancipation of the MILF, concerning Claire Dederer’s book Love and Trouble: A Midlife Reckoning,

About six years ago, Claire Dederer realized she had a problem. The problem had to do with sex. It had to do with desire. It had to do with being a middle-aged wife and mother and needing and wanting to be seen and known by new people in a new way, maybe even by people she didn’t particularly like or love or respect all that much. Her problem had something to do with sex but didn’t stop there.

In other words, women feel the call of the wild much like men do, and they are willing to blow up their marriages to answer that call. Solution: Don’t marry in the first place.

I don’t know that I believe this,

By modern standards, the author’s misbehavior is mild — there is no marriage-destroying, Eat, Pray, Love–style romance or affair. Instead, she yearns and flirts; she stays out late and takes vacations with her best friend instead of her husband; she has a slew of inappropriate email friendships with various suitors, and at her most reckless, allows an unnamed, famous short story writer from California to stick his tongue in her mouth

And even if I do, why marry a woman who is going to yearn and flirt with someone else anyway? Better not to give her access to half or more of your assets.

How odd it is to exist in this moment of so many contradictions when it comes to our thinking about female sexuality. “We’re living at a time,” I said to her, “when women, some women, some young women, have more sexual freedom than ever before. It’s sort of okay now to not get married. It’s sort of okay to say you don’t want to have kids. It’s sort of okay to have sex with other women, or to have sex with men and women, or to be into kink, or to be sex-positive, or polyamorous, or whatever

It’s “okay” to not get married. So don’t get married.

You can have kids without marrying. Lately I’ve also been slowing down on the game. I just don’t get the thrill from bedding women that I used to.

Back on point, there is another useful article, ‘We Choose Each Other Over and Over Because We Want to’: Readers Share Their Open-Marriage Stories,

To tell this story with the kind of depth that it requires, you need to tell the story of those for whom nonmonogamy didn’t work out. In my case, after more than 10 years of marriage and two kids, my wife fell for someone else, and I agreed to open up the marriage.

In retrospect, I never really had a choice, and this was the beginning of the end of the marriage.

Now many red pill guys are vehemently opposed to non-monogamy. I do not share your feelings for reasons I mention here. To me non-monogamy done well is really next level pickup artistry in which guys share high-quality women for the benefit of all, like good ideas are shared by great scientists in order to further the scientific quest. I am never likely to attempt to be monogamous again. It’s not practical for me and based on the data not practical for a wide swath of the population. But I have never married and will never marry. If you practice non-monogamy without the economic bonds of marriage it is likely to work out much better for you. If you are married and non-monogamous then you’ve fucked up and just don’t realize it yet.

As you know I am vehemently opposed to marriage. The poor sap in the NYT story likely had half his assets stripped from him and has decades of “child” support in front of him. His ex will likely get full custody of the kids. In the modern era marriage is just stupid and dangerous, especially as conscious non-monogamy grows. He could have had kids without getting married and without getting as financially entangled with a wife.

Some of the guys here evince a misty nostalgia for a past era of relatively strong monogamy. I doubt that era was all that good (everyone had kids way young and got used up fast, men and women both) but whether it was or wasn’t it’s over. The only real way to protect yourself today is to not get married. As mentioned above I love non-monogamy, but I would probably not do it if I were also entangled in marriage and taking the risks marriage imposes.

Women want to follow your lead: a story about a woman presenting two ways

Years ago I dated this average-but-pretty woman, and I slowly introduced her to sex-positive culture and sex parties. When we first started dating she presented a fairly average relationship and sex history. Over the course of a month or two I got her to go to a sex party with me and then eventually got her to swap partners. That was hard for her at first, and about half of women I’ve gotten to do this find it very hard, while about half are pretty curious to try it out (contrary to some of the manosphere descriptions). She did do it and over time she became more sex-positive. In her rhetoric and actions she began to favor of group sex and consensual non-monogamy.

Eventually things soured because I wouldn’t move in with her and refused to make a long-term commitment. A long time ago I decided that cohabitation is not for me, and refusing the “next steps” has probably been the end of my last 10 – 15 short- to medium-term relationships. Most women have their own dating timeline and it moves from meeting to kissing to casual sex to deep sex to moving in, marrying, and children.

My timeline stops at deep sex and most women will break up with me when I tell them after a couple months that there is no “next” step to the relationship. It is possible to lie and let women dangle for long periods of time, but I think it’s mean, deceptive, and hurts both the woman and the guy telling the lie. Women also have tight reproductive timelines and for women over the age of 30 it’s cruel to let them invest years of their reproductive prime in a relationship that isn’t going anywhere.

Plus, if you let a woman age 30+ invest years of her reproductive prime in you, don’t be surprised if she takes matters into her own hands and “forgets” to take her birth control. Or she gets her IUD out and doesn’t have it replaced.

You may argue that’s unethical. I agree. It’s also unethical and cruel to let a woman invest years of her reproductive prime at age 30+ in a relationship that won’t lead to kids. Yes, she should “know better,” but so should you. Have fun with her for a couple months, then be straightforward about being a player and not wanting  kids (or kids with her).

I did like this woman and I did like the way she had sex. Like most women who breakup for timeline issues we did keep hooking up for a while. In these situations it’s common for the woman to find another guy, date him, break up with him, and come back for more sex.

I don’t think any of her friends totally knew what we were up to, although some could read between the lines when they’d ask what we were doing and I’d say things like, “Going to a party,” and when they’d ask if they could come, I’d explain that I’m not sure it was for them and that I wasn’t the host. If you do this kinda shit with a smile you can get away with it. Some of them would drunkenly confide their own dark sex desires to me, because they knew I’d keep those desires secret.

Recently this guy I work with acquired a new girlfriend. One night I finally meet her and it’s the same one from my story before! Just older. Meeting for her was awkward for her and for him, because we obviously knew each other. I just did my usual thing in this circumstance and was like, “Oh hey, I remember you from Joe’s party.” Like I said women want to fall into your frame and she fell right into mine again, saving face and making sure it’s less awkward than it would be otherwise for the guy dating her.

Part of the reason this encounter went more smoothly than it could have is because she knows I don’t want to shame her in front of her new man. I don’t want to out her. She knows that my sex positivity is real. She acquiesced to taping sex acts that could be viewed as degrading because she knew, correctly, that I would never use those tapes against her.

Some snippets of those tapes are still on the Internet but she is not identifiable in them. If you are part of the secret society and really keep the “secret” part of the secret society, good things will happen to you.

I’m 95% sure she’s not going to tell the guy she’s dating that she’s fucked me and fucked a bunch of other guys and gals with me. I’m pretty sure my colleague has a normal frame and worldview about women that does not include understanding that women love sex and will do almost anything for a guy they really want to keep. He couldn’t imagine this woman partner-swapping and fucking a guy whose name she doesn’t even know while I do the same to his girl. I feel kinda bad for the guy, but it is not my job to wake him up; that is his job. He is a fine guy overall but he presents to women as weak and normal so I’m sure women treat him that way.

He should know or suspect her history, but his mind doesn’t want to go there. People can tell which guys are players and which guys are losers who can’t get dates, and while I’ve mostly stopped bringing dates to most company or industry functions, people know. I try to minimize that reputation because it doesn’t help me for the most part, but it is not possible to fully hide who you are.

Also, I’m sure that some of the commenters will say that all women are willing to go to orgies and engage in gang bangs and the depraved shit I like. Not true. I’ve tried. Women have turned me down or just run away because group sex or partner swapping is not congruent with their personalities. That’s fine with me. I’d say they’re the minority of women, probably under 25%, but they exist.

Over time though most women will follow your lead. I want to be a hedonistic slut and over time demand that women do the same. Most will. My colleague probably wants women to present as demure and so they probably will present that way. Most people do not actually stand for anything, so they follow the lead of the strongest person they see.

Happy New Year and make 2017 the year you do the shit you really want to do. Don’t let other people tell you how to run your life. It is up to you to create the world you want to live in. The vast majority of the population just goes through other people’s ruts and other people’s paths.

To quote another writer, “Your woman is pretty much malleable to whatever values or life you to intend to live, if your frame is strong enough.” There are exceptions but in most cases women respond to authentic frames and want a guy strong enough to graciously and gracefully lead them. If you have that frame a lot becomes possible. Most women hide their deep sexual desires for fear of being judged by other women and by men. The number who will speak about how they feel or act out their fantasies is small because most women are constrained by the box other women and men put around them. I try to open that box.

Show her what type of man you are so she knows what kinda woman to be.

Someone asked me whether most guys in non-monogamous relationships are secretly or overtly bisexual. I don’t think so, and guys who are bi or want to experiment with men can go to any gay bar any night of the week to do so. They don’t need to go to a sex club. Gay guys do what straight guys wish they could and have sex all the time. So there’s really no need to go through the whole party and club process that straight group sex entails.

Most guys are weak. Be different: “Today’s men are not nearly as strong as their dads were, researchers say”

Today’s men are not nearly as strong as their dads were, researchers say” is a must-read. The short, un-PC version is that most guys are pussies. Are you one? Then stop being one. Being a pussy is a choice that you make eery day.

Based on reading “Today’s men are not nearly as strong as their dads were, researchers say,” it’s not surprising that most guys have problems with women, since most guys have weak, flabby bodies matched with weak, flabby minds and weak, flabby personalities. None of those are attractive to women. If you fix those fundamentals (most guys are too busy playing video games and watching Internet porn to bother) you will beat 80% or more of guys out there.

The WaPo article says,

To look at it another way: In 1985, the typical 30-to-34-year-old man could squeeze your hand with 31 pounds more force than the typical woman of that age could. But today, older millennial men and women are roughly equal when it comes to grip strength.

Women don’t want a guy who is only as strong as they are. They want considerably strong. Tough love: if you are a pussy in the physical realm you deserve to have those problems.

I’ve had lots of problems in my life but I’ve never had some of the extreme problems with women a lot of guys have. I think that’s because I developed strong sports and athletics habits early and never gave up. The price modern guys pay is never being able to give up. Most of the guys I swam with and lifted with when I was younger are now typical fatasses, and they have all the typical older guy fatass problems.

I know I keep saying this, but that’s because it’s so important: you will beat a huge percentage of guys just by not being a pussy.

(ht Marginal Revolution)

“Young Americans Are Killing Marriage: Millennials are lagging behind on the traditional markers of adulthood”

Young Americans Are Killing Marriage: Millennials are lagging behind on the traditional markers of adulthood” has interesting data:

In 1980, two-thirds of 25- to 34-year-olds were already married. One in eight had already been married and divorced. In 2015, just two in five millennials were married, and only 7 percent had been divorced.

Baby boomers’ eagerness to get married meant they were far more likely than today’s young people to live on their own. Anderson looked at the share of each generation living independently, either as heads of their own household or in married couples.

The author says “There’s no shortage of theories as to how and why today’s young people differ from their parents,” but I think the low marriage rate has a simpler explanation: a lot of guys have wised up to how fucking crazily dangerous it is to get married.

Read Real World Divorce, because it explains just how costly and disgusting real-world divorce is. Smart guys look around at what happens to the other men around them and don’t get married.

The marriage market is composed of two large groups: The first group is guys who do well with women and don’t have any problems getting laid or finding girlfriends. For them, there’s no reason to get married even though lots of women want to marry them.

The second group is a larger pool of guys who would get married, but most women don’t like them much and won’t marry them, or will marry and then divorce them. Many of you probably were those guys at one point in time (I wasn’t quite that bad, though I’ve made my share of errors).

Not every guy fits perfectly into one category or the other.

Guys with solid game and some grasp of the cultural and legal climate won’t bother marrying. Guys without it will want to but women often find them repulsive. Then women lament about how they can’t find “eligible” men who want to marry. No shit. I wonder why.

One of the top-rated comments on the original for this post says, “You can have a LTR and start a family. But dear jesus never get . . . married. You have been warned.”

Good advice.

Marriage is one of the best and fastest ways to destroy your wealth and life. It is a horrible debt trap that many men stupidly sleepwalk into.

Be aggressive and do better than most guys: “When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It”

When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It” is really about why most guys are pussies. Sorry, guys, but it’s true:

Women aren’t the only ones experiencing some cognitive dissonance between their animalistic urges and the social conventions of dating. “More and more men are finding it difficult to be as direct, when it comes to dating and sex, as previous generations of men maybe once were,” says Chiara Atik, author of Modern Dating: A Field Guide. We all get that the rules of traditional courtship — in which men make every single advance and women demur or acquiesce — are dead, but we haven’t replaced them with a new standard operating procedure. “Everyone’s being kind of wishy-washy,” Atik says. “Women want sex, but they don’t want to be seen as forward (or worse, desperate). Men want sex but are intimidated, unconfident, or don’t want to be seen as domineering. We’re not sure who should be the sexual instigators, and then no one really steps up to the plate.”

Now let me blunt. You, as a man, should not find “it difficult to be as direct.” You should come to find it easy. If you see a woman you like, go chat her up. If she’s receptive, ask her out. If you go out with her, you pick the venues and activities and lead her. If she seems happy or neutral on the date, you invite her back. You initiate foreplay and then sex, but in a controlled manner that sub-verbally checks in with her. You tell her what to do (while getting that feedback from her). Figure out what she likes. For some women it’s neck kisses. For some it’s their earlobes. Some (most) want to be spanked. Some want their nipples tortured. Some want their nipples caressed. Figuring out what she likes should be fun and should be directed by you. It is your job to direct those animal urges from beginning to end.

I like the game definition offered by the Good Looking Loser guy: game is looks, social freedom, style, and killer instinct. “Social freedom” and “killer instinct” are another way of saying: “Don’t be wishy-washy. Make things happen.” That’s it, whether you want to call it “game” or charisma or something else.

The rules of “traditional courtship” are not really dead. They have shifted somewhat and women are obviously much more willing to have sex now than they were in 1950 or 1900. But the man still needs to be the sexual instigator if he wants a good sex life (and he is not a celebrity or something… if he is, he does not need my advice).

Being the instigator also means you will be rejected. Probably a lot. Sorry. It hurts at first and maybe always hurts. I’ve been on a long cold streak lately, with probably 30 or 40 outright, real rejections in the last couple months. Maybe I am getting too old. Whatever it is, my choice is to give up or keep trying. I’ve probably been rejected more than the vast majority of guys. That doesn’t matter. I’ve also accomplished pretty much everything sexual I could want to accomplish. The kinky shit I’d rather not share here has been a part of my life. But so has a lot of darkness. A lot of rejection.

Chiara Atik is wrong about male-female dynamics. Men will likely always be the aggressors. If you get comfortable with being the aggressor in a calibrated way you will become attuned to indicators of interest women put out. If you do some of the obvious TRP things like lift, use your time productively, approach women, and improve your style, you will do better than most guys. You may still not do as well as the really rich, attractive, socially astute guys who have the advantages you don’t. So be it. Life isn’t fair. It never has been or will be. Life is about taking what you have and maximizing it. Many of the stories I have posted in this account are about that philosophy.

I think that women are right: most guys probably are intimidated by a woman who initiates (you shouldn’t be, if it happens, and it won’t very often). But there’s another factor, unstated by the article: most women are probably initiating with a guy several levels above their level of attractiveness. When I’ve been explicitly hit on by women, it’s almost always been by fatties or other women I wouldn’t deign to even fuck. Some of them probably went and told their friends that guys don’t like women who initiate. Ha.

Women who are as attractive as you or more attractive will very rarely explicitly hit on guys. They’ll implicitlyhit guys by smiling a lot, playing with their hair, maintaining intense eye contact, maintaining proximity, and other things like that, but they will not make the first move in the ways that I’ve made the first move. These days, I assume a woman from the past who initiates contact of any kind (text message, usually, but not always) is looking for sex, and I try to escalate appropriately if I want to.

To be clear, I think we would live in a better world if more women initiated and did so directly. But we’ll never see that world, for reasons based in biology, and consequently I don’t spend a lot of time thinking or worrying about what that world would be like, and I don’t spend time proselytizing for it.

As you move forward in your life journey you will also discover something that I wish I had discovered sooner, in that most women don’t have much to offer beyond sex. Once you realize that your whole life changes and you will become much pickier about who you date (you will also realize how badly women want to be f**king kinky and have great sex). Cause you will realize that women have almost as little control over who they find attractive as you do (regardless of what the media says, you’re not going to find older, heavier, less fertile women attractive). You’ll learn to be that man, take the pain that comes with it (from rejection), and do better than most guys. Most women never get the kind of pain men do and consequently never develop into the person they could become, and they never develop the skills useful in starting a business, doing sales, etc.

If you are overly intimidated you are a pussy… it’s normal to feel some intimidation or trepidation, and probably only sociopaths never feel it. But to never make any moves at all? Stop being a pussy.

“Supply, Demand, and the Rise of the Man-Child:” Lessons

Supply, Demand, and the Rise of the Man-Child” describes how our society has changed from past to present. I don’t know when the inflection point happened but I would guess it to be in the 70s,

Consider a traditional society where all the men sell their labor and all the women keep house. You might think there’s only one market, but there are actually two: The labor market and the mating market. Men use their wages to supplement their masculine charms (if any) when they woo. In the labor market, the compensation that employers offer workers adjusts to balance the supply and demand for labor. In the mating market, the quality of life that men offer women adjusts to balance the supply and demand for women.*

Thrown down buddy,

Next question: What happens if we move this model into the modern world? Specifically, what happens in the mating market when women start earning money of their own? The obvious answer is just to flip the initial model around. If higher wages for men lead to higher quality of life for women, we’d expect higher wages for women to lead to higher quality of life for men. And what do most men see as a “higher quality of life”? Among other things: Less commitment, lower maturity, and lower expectations of financial support. In short, the chance to be a man-child.

Feminists wanted women to be able to earn their own money, which they can now do (and that is good, because we should remove structural barriers that prevent entire classes of people from competing for whatever it is they want). But that has consequences and in the aggregate changes the preferences of women

The upshot: Women’s demand for men isn’t just higher than ever; the composition of their demand has changed. Income and income potential still matter. But women now focus more on looks, machismo, coolness, and other “alpha” traits. Holding charisma constant, working harder just doesn’t attract women the way it used to. The result: Less desirable men often give up on women altogether – further tilting the effective male/female ratio in favor of the remaining men. And both kinds of men act like boys: The less desirable men have little to lose, and the more desirable men can get away with it.

So

When women have zero labor income, you’d expect them to care a lot about men’s income. They might even marry men they loathe to get a roof over their heads. As women’s income rises, however, women can afford to focus more on men’s non-pecuniary traits.

Caplan has already done the analysis. It is important to learn how you should adjust your own behavior based on prevailing conditions. Today, families and government make sure that women are fed, clothed, and housed to their satisfaction. The model Caplan offers has important implication for guys who are debating how to invest their limited time, money, energy, and other resources. All of us face trade-offs and our lives are defined by scarcity. What we do with scarce resources defines us.

Many guys have been told by their parents, society, or women that if they play by the “rules,” which are not readily articulated but add up to something like respect rules and authority, get a good education and then a good job and then everything will happen for you. But a lot of guys want first and foremost hot sex with hot women and many guys are surprised when the rules and guidelines they’re taught don’t lead to hot sex with hot women, while a lot of guys who naturally discard those rules and focus on sports and popularity get a lot of action.

Guys see scumbags getting laid all over and they start to realize that being an okay guy in an okay job isn’t that desirable to most women. WTF? What happened?

Guys who try to follow the old script get frustrated. Being a plodding, reliable, good earner isn’t enough most of the time. Women can earn money for themselves easily and even those who can’t still often prefer thrilling bad boys over stolid reliable dudes with average jobs, average bodies, and average personalities. Women will settle for those guys when they get older and/or can’t get commitment from guys who turn them on.

As a guy, you need to think about what you want. If you want more sex, you need to invest in body, wit, pleasure, and hedonism over job, conventional worker-based status, and stability. Choose a job that pays a little less for a little less work over a job that pays more but leaves you stunted, exhausted, and too tired to get laid (what are you working so hard for, anyway? Unless you make real big $$$$$ women won’t care anyway. Don’t you know that you can’t buy her love? I think that is even true.)

I will not tell you to discard any job or career focus. That is a mistake too and many scumbags come to ill ends or cannot keep going forever. But scumbags often get laid more and good guys who allocate their efforts poorly often do poorly with women. They end up working and being taxed to death so that single moms with poor impulse control and judgment can easily have children out of wedlock with random dudes. This leads to “Radicalizing the Romanceless” outcomes

Or to spell it out very carefully, Henry clearly has no trouble attracting partners. He’s been married five times and had multiple extra-marital affairs and pre-marital partners, many of whom were well aware of his past domestic violence convictions and knew exactly what they were getting into. Meanwhile, here I was, twenty-five years old, never been on a date in my life, every time I ask someone out I get laughed at, I’m constantly teased and mocked for being a virgin and a nerd whom no one could ever love, starting to develop a serious neurosis about it.

And here I was, tried my best never to be mean to anyone, pursued a productive career, worked hard to help all of my friends. I didn’t think I deserved to have the prettiest girl in school prostrate herself at my feet. But I did think I deserved to not be doing worse than Henry.

Be more like Henry and less like Dan. These guys can be called “man-children,” as Caplan does, or they can be called “guys who have responded to incentives and realized that incentives reward hedonism while punishing everyone else.” Women don’t care that much about income, especially for short-term relationships, so guys should maximize the shit women do care about (if they want to get laid). Watch what women do (and who they have sex with) versus what they say (and who they don’t have sex with). Action is all.

Be a fun-loving bad boy with lots of lovers and a good solid squat and good dancing skills over the stolid guy sitting in a cubicle somewhere.

What do spend our excess money on? Sex.

Be kind from a position of strength, not a position of weakness

Don’t be a “nice” guy. But I’ve observed guys who can be kind while still being dominant, and I’ve observed guys who attempt to be kind but are really giant pussies. The differences are instructive.

Two guys I work with illustrate the point… one is respected, demanding, and yet kind, while the other guy runs around supplicating to women and superiors in a way that makes him seem like a dog. He’ll do anything for anyone and as a consequence no one respects his time or (limited) knowledge. He brags about the things he does for people and especially for women. Watching him brag to women he’d like to bang is pathetic. He’d be a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen if he had the balls to make a move. Fortunately he doesn’t and he’s at least harmless enough not to be a likely lawsuit target.

The other guy will not do anything for anyone any time. He isn’t miserly either. Instead he seems to carefully evaluate who he is actually friends with and what actually needs to be done. He can be astonishingly generous with his time if he thinks his investment is likely to be worthwhile, but he is also good at subtly but definitely shaming people who waste his time. One of my first bosses was like him, and I learned more from that boss (and from a particular client) than I have from anyone else, ever, including teachers, professors, and girlfriends.

I’m also thinking about kindness from a position of stregnth because in this essay VC Paul Graham states,

Good does not mean being a pushover. I would not want to face an angry Ronco. But if Ron’s angry at you, it’s because you did something wrong. Ron is so old school he’s Old Testament. He will smite you in his just wrath, but there’s no malice in it.

In almost every domain there are advantages to seeming good. It makes people trust you. But actually being good is an expensive way to seem good. To an amoral person it might seem to be overkill.

Being kind does not mean being a pussy. If you’re “kind” because you’re a pussy and can’t be assertive, no one will respect you and no one should respect you. Things are often valuable in proportion to their supply, and an infinite supply of a thing (like kindness) is of low value.

Don’t be “nice” to women, but be kind to ones who you’re already fucking and who deserve kindness. Don’t give anything, including attention, to women you’re not fucking and who have proven that you’re not going to fuck them. With women and clients pretty much everything is a binary: You’re fucking them or you’re not; they’re giving you money or they’re not. There is no in between. Women and clients like the liminal state. It took me way too long to learn this.

I hate to use the word “nice,” which is close to “kind,” because “nice” has been so polluted by the idea of the “nice guy” that it’s toxic.

Being kind can also mean being tactfully honest. If someone is deadlifting incorrectly it is kind to tell them, or to tell them how you know what you know. Being “nice” can often mean trying to assuage a person’s feelings, even when feelings of inadequacy or wrongness are justified. That being said, know when to speak and when to shut the fuck up. Often shutting the fuck up is best because morons can’t be helped and can’t take justified criticism.

The girl I’m breaking away from sees me as kind because her sister (who she is close to) does and because of something I did: I paid her tuition (which wasn’t much money) briefly. Now, I know, and you should know, that it’s a horrible idea to use money to supplicate to women. Let me emphasize that before commenters jump on me. I’d already been dating this girl for about a year. When we first started dating I don’t think she had any idea how much I make. I don’t waste money on the usual dumb shit guys waste money on (cars, apartments; unfortunately I do have a high burn rate that is not negotiable, however). Her work and school interfered with her ability to do the things I wanted her to do, so I just paid the tuition. She didn’t ask for it, directly or indirectly, which is an unusual mark of character these days. It isn’t a lot of money to me. You can argue that I was manipulated, but if so then I was party to the manipulation.

We’re on the path to breakup because she wants to move in with me and I’ve flat-out said no. I’ve been down that path and I’m not going down it again. I like this girl and I like the crazy shit I’ve encouraged her to do, but long-term she’s too young for me and I don’t want the kind of committment she thinks she wants but doesn’t actually want. Living together is the death of eroticism and I won’t do that again. Not anytime soon. Maybe someday.

Reminder, I originally wrote this post a year and a half ago, so some of the personal anecdotes don’t line up with my current life.

Practical tips from “Real World Divorce:” “Don’t slide into marriage”

Most of this post is not me! It’s from Real World Divorce, a book by Alexa Dankowski, Suzanne Goode, Philip Greenspun, Chaconne Martin-Berkowicz, and Tina Tonnu. The most important part is: “What’s her best advice to people hoping to have a lifelong marriage?” And the answer: “Don’t slide into marriage. When you move in or have a child together, do it on purpose,” which is one of the things I’ve done right in my life. I’ve never gotten married, and although I’ve been rammed by the so-called “family court” system, at least I haven’t gotten hit with the alimony too:

“Marriage used to be something you did first and then you built your life on that,” said Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott, an American sociologist currently teaching at University of Otago. “Now it is a capstone event that you do after you achieve other things. This results in people waiting until they are much older to have children. In New Zealand right now there are more women age 35-39 having children than women 20-25.”

In light of Professor Hohmann-Marriott’s observation, staying married is more important than it used to be because people are getting married at an age where they have fewer remaining years in which to recover from a mistake.

Hofmann-Marriott’s research, in collaboration with Professor Paul Amato at Penn State, shows that there are plenty of divorces in marriages that are just as happy as those that continue for decades. “Nothing distinguished the quality of marriage for those people who got divorced out of low-distress [nobody hitting anyone] marriages,” Professor Hohmann-Marriott told us, “so it has to be just a lack of personal commitment to the institution of marriage that explains some divorces.” What’s her best advice to people hoping to have a lifelong marriage? “Don’t slide into marriage. When you move in or have a child together, do it on purpose.”

Based on our interviews with attorneys, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as our review of the literature, a good starting point is to find people who have a cultural or religious commitment to marriage. They are the ones who will be willing to put in some work and effort when there are bumps in the road, rather than picking up the phone to call a litigator. At the other end of the spectrum are children of divorce who are themselves prone to becoming divorced. “If she didn’t have a close and loving relationship with her daddy,” we were told, “she isn’t going to be able to handle being a wife.” This perspective is echoed in the psychology literature. From Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues (Nielsen 2012): “Which mothers are the least likely to be gatekeepers? Generally speaking, mothers who keep the coparenting gate open share several things in common (Titelman, 2008; Cannon, 2008; Chiland, 1982; Krampe & Newton, 2006; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2010). First, these mothers had good relationships with their fathers while they were growing up. They value and appreciate fathers. They believe men and women should be equal parents. In contrast, the gatekeepers more often grew up in single-parent, divorced, or unhappily married families. Their relationships with their fathers were distant, troubled, or virtually nonexistent.” Most states’ divorce courts substantially reward gatekeeper mothers by awarding custody to the “historical primary caregiver” of a child. By definition a gatekeeper mother will have been the dominant parent during a marriage.

The research of Brinig and Allen shows that your chance of being sued for divorce rises with the amount of money that your spouse can get from you and with the probability that your spouse can win sole custody of the children. You can increase your chances of staying married, therefore, by marrying someone wealthier than yourself and by ensuring that you are not in a jurisdiction where the other spouse can easily get sole custody of the children (e.g., if you’re a man, try to settle in Arizona or Delaware).