“The female price of male pleasure” is missing one important thing: men and women are biologically different.

“The female price of male pleasure” is missing one important thing: men and women are biologically different. For decades we’ve been hearing blank slate ideology from feminists. But men and women aren’t blank slates. We have similar, but distinct in notable ways, built-in preferences. This is basically obvious to anyone who has ever dated, but for some reason it’s been missing in feminist discourse for like 50 years.

That men and women have distinct preferences is obvious to anyone who has dated or anyone who has read evolutionary biology. Every guy who learns game unlearns blank-slate ideology and instead has to learn what women actually want. Most women do not want precisely what men want in the way that men want it.

At the same time, most women haven’t learned what actual men are like. In my opinion it’s insane that women get blackout drunk and go home with strangers and near-strangers, yet many do and the larger culture seems unwilling to tell them that no, this is not a good idea.

And then women are SHOCKED that men don’t want the same things they do. Kind of like how men are SHOCKED that women don’t behave or think like women in most visual porn (which is male fantasy).

How about we start by acknowledging the difference average preferences between men and women in terms of how, where, when, and why sex happens happens?

Get rid of the blank slate and we’ll all be better able to know each other. Stick to it, and we’re going to keep getting these missed signals and crappy hookups and drunkenness.

(The author does mention and talk about biology, which is a good start, but refuses to link it to psychology. And the failures of the medical profession to treat endometriosis and similar ailments seriously are also real. She is confused about “beauty standards,” though. Those exist because women are in competition with one another for the highest-status men. If men thought they could win sex competitions by wearing high heels and makeup, every straight guy would be at the makeup counter tomorrow. I’d be first in line.)

Guys are frustrated by sex advice like “Just be yourself” and “Be a gentleman” (AKA be asexual, then watch the girl go off with some caveman).  Women are frustrated when they realize guys are hornier and more feral than they often appear on the surface.

I think both men and women are paying the price for ignorance and failing to emphasize the desires, on average, of the opposite sex.

No one, or almost no one, is looking at the “Five whys” failure analysis of the Aziz Ansari situation. We can’t import the methods good software teams use to understand modes of failure. Evolutionary biology helps us understand those modes better, on a sexual level. Women are encouraged to act like naive waifs, like “Grace,” instead of being taught about agency and male desire. Men are taught to be overly timid and then they’re surprised when the least-timid among them are the most sexually successful.

What a mess. What’s it going to take to get a little honesty injected into this conversation?

Sex parties and sex clubs could be the next level of game

I’ve written about non-monogamy and sex clubs here, here, and in “How many women are open to sex parties and partner swapping? [intermediate/advanced].” There’s little reason to read this unless you are 1. already getting laid pretty regularly and 2. confident of your ability to to meet and sleep with new women.

Sex clubs are not a shortcut to having real game. Sex clubs are an extension of existing game. If you don’t have game and status already you will have a bad time if you try to bring your only, sole, single girl with you. Guys like me will try to pick her off. We might succeed. Not only that, but a guy who pins everything to one girl may go emotionally nuts the first time she has sex with another guy in front of him, or indicates that she wants sex with another guy. Before you bring a girl into that situation you need to know that there’s another one behind her if or when she bolts.

[I have finally gotten around to putting together a complete guide to sex clubs and game. If you want a structured, comprehensive look at how this world works, check out the book.] 

In my view, the basic dynamic of sex parties is guys exchanging hot females with a minimal amount of logistical bother. That’s it. People overcomplicate and overthink this. You have a hot girl. I have a hot girl. Let’s trade. The girl obviously has to like the other guy well enough (or want to fuck the girl).

This is the fundamental dynamic. It’s an exchange of value for value. I get more novelty than I’d have otherwise. You get more novelty than you’d have otherwise. Win-win. Fail to bring the value and you will likely fail at the sex club. Guys who have a bad time of game in general will also have a bad time if they manage to convince their one and only partner to come to a sex club with them.

Single women will sometimes come to sex clubs, and sometimes even attractive single women will come. Many guys will of course desire the single women for a threesome, and guys with sufficiently high status and good game are more likely to get them. Single women who are highly open to experience, highly bisexual, or with very high sex drives are the only ones likely to attend. Most women, of course, don’t do shit unless there is a guy ready to lead them. Exceptions tend to be ultra-high libido. Like, I’ve had a fairly long-term, off-and-on FWB who really, seriously wants to have sex twice a day, every day. You, the man reading this, may think, “Oh great mate, sign me up, I’d love to shag that much too.” The vast majority of guys, especially guys over the age of 25, will eventually be knackered by a really persistent woman, and she’s figured that out, so she needs multiple boyfriends or FWBs.

But she’s exceptional and unusual. Typical women at sex parties are brought by their primary partners. Typical guys want to swap with a girl who is at least on the level of the girl they’ve brought. It’s about exchanging value.

The basics of game still apply. Strong masculine identity and strong social skills lead to good outcomes. At parties and clubs lots of guys try to get “something for nothing” by offering to swap with couples nowhere near their level. Usually they are declined. Often by me. If you bring a girl to a sex party, be ready to say “no.” Be ready to lead.

Be ready to lead.

Be ready to lead. I know I’ve just written that three times in a row, but game-aware guys know that very few chicks will lead. They will really really not lead in most group sex situations. Some chicks will lead themselves a little bit more as they get relaxed and into the sex zone, but most won’t at the beginning. The fewer the people, the worse most chicks are at leading. So you, the man, will have to have the social deftness to make propositions and accept when they’re rejected. And when they’re accepted, which is scarier for some guys.

Most cities have a “scene” of some kind. I don’t know your city so I don’t know what it entails. In your city there will likely be a core nucleus of regulars, organizers, and people who make things happen. Show up enough and you will become one of them. If you’re a high-value guy who regularly brings hot chicks, you’ll be invited to events solo.

The worst clubs and parties are empty or filled with fatties. I walk away from those events. When I use online app matcher systems, I emphasize my interests in lifting and fitness, and this acts as a fattie repulsion system. Not perfectly, but well enough.

At the best events there are many hot couples or, more rarely, single unicorns. The hotter you are, the better you do. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Fantasize about a party full of gorgeous women aching for wild sex with you, but know that those don’t exist in real life. Because people are there for sex, guys can’t hold out much in the way of resources and commitment to attract women. What RP guys call “beta” or “niceguy” game works poorly.

Lots of threeways have happened with women or couples I’ve met through the scene. If you’re a reliable guy who brings hot girls to the parties and clubs, you’ll be in demand by other couples who want to swap. As you should know from reading Nancy Friday or some female erotica, lots of women fantasize about a threesome with two guys. Keep an eye out and you’ll find other guys, possibly game-aware, who may become your go-to “threesome friend.” You bring him in when you need a guy and vice-versa. It’s all about the value. If you’re providing value and he’s providing value, you’re golden.

Most guys are poorly equipped, psychologically and physically, for this role. But the right guy can be great. Like I said, he brings chicks, you bring chicks. He may have game, or he may just have a good social circle and persistence.

And, as for her, most girls know that most men can’t even articulate the girl’s fantasies, let alone fulfill them. Being able to move her from fantasy to reality will blow her mind and simultaneously draw her into your world. “Wait!” you might be thinking, “How is it that a threesome with another guy will bring her closer to you?”

Simple: she’s likely never been there before, and she knows that most guys will freak out if they hear her real fantasies. So any guy who can bring them up, listen without judgment, or even propose the kind of sex she’s dreamed about must be special. It takes social finesse to make these things happen, and she’ll know you have it, whereas other guys don’t.

Most women are very scared to share their fantasies. They fear, legitimately, that guys will shame them. Being a guy who doesn’t ever slut shame and lets her explore her bedroom desires will set you apart.

If you have a regular, uncommitted FWB you don’t want for an LTR, try bringing her. Maybe you’ll hate it. But it can be next-level game if you have the right stuff for it.

Most couples who come will be in committed relationships and they’ll be bored with each other. If you’re the guy who consistently brings in new hot women, you will be exceptional. You will be a star.

Some women will say no but many will be intrigued. I’ve been told many things. Like:

• You are too experimental.
• You are disgusting.
• I would never do something like that.
• I’m not that kind of girl.
• I want a guy who respects me.

The first one is my fave. About a quarter of chicks have rejected me outright when I’ve proposed a sex club. I only do that after I’ve been sleeping with them for at least a couple weeks. About a quarter have been excited and enthusiastic and don’t need convincing. About half have been uncertain, but they will usually go if I encourage them and promise that we’ll start slow.

Many sex parties and clubs will pretend to be egalitarian and accept people of all body types. Ignore the rhetoric. The reality is that sexual marketplace value operates at sex clubs just like it does everywhere else. You cannot evade it. Using sex clubs to try to avoid having basic value and game will backfire and waste time. Guys who learn the game realize they need two things: value and a value delivery mechanism. Fail in either and the game won’t work. At the clubs, you will very rarely see young girls who like the degradation of sex with vile men, but that is rare. Most women assess men’s sex appeal in all the ways RP guys already know.

It’s not for all guys, but I see no one writing about this. It’s a kind of ecosystem game that I’ve not seen players write about. But to me, it’s an extension of other kinds of game that can be much faster than opening girls on the street or online. But like I keep saying, it is not a shortcut. Try using it as a shortcut and you will be burned.

You may have heard, “A man is only as monogamous as his options.” Few men with good options choose monogamy. Once you get to that stage…. why not keep going? Make those options work for you, instead of hiding who you want to be?

If you have gotten this far, read the book already.

‘Cheap Sex,’ our lives, our politics

Like I said, this book is good to read. In the article, the best sentence is, “The fuckboy lifestyle — in which a man can be basically worthless yet sexually successful — was simply not viable.” Absolutely. And men are still adjusting, psychologically, emotionally, and culturally to this shift. Women, especially young hot ones, now value sexual and sensual pleasure more than world-building and income. Every guy has seen some hot chick not just fuck but obsess over a degenerate guy. Then the guy thinks, “What is the degenerate doing that I’m not?”

Guys who follow that thought far enough find game.

The author neglects to make clear that sex is “cheap” for the top 20 or 25% of guys. It’s still very expensive for all the other guys. Those other guys are forced to watch porn, be celibate, cling futilely to their one-itis, become extremely wealthy, become famous, or learn game. In my view only that last one is practical for the vast majority of men.

When a man truly realizes sex is cheap, everything about him changes. “Cheap sex” is another phrase for “abundance mentality.” But when a man has abundance, it’s not just a mentality. It’s his life.

“Tinder and the Tyranny of Language” is an argument for daygame

“Tinder and the Tyranny of Language” is about the online horror stories you’re familiar with, and it explains why Tinder works poorly for the vast majority of guys… but the author also sucks at Tinder:

Expect several days of intimate, evocative and tantalising back-and-forth, conversations running into the early hours of the morning, a reliable hit of dopamine at the peering at of one’s lock screen. You organise a face to face, a real live date—and the anxiety hits infinity, as this person who you have finally clicked with, will suddenly become real.

WTF? No. Why would this guy do that? Get a drink with whoever quickly. Usually after three to five messages. If she won’t show up in person it isn’t real. Guys who do less often do better than guys who do more. This guy becomes her dancing monkey and attention drip, like a bag of morphine straight into her arm. Don’t expect several days of back-and-forth. Suggest getting a drink and if she says no or ghosts, you know that you were wasting your time.

Location is important. This guy’s Twitter bio says he’s in Melbourne, Australia. I don’t know shit about Melbourne. Guys in bad cities with lots of men in them (Melbourne, San Francisco, Seattle) are going to have a bad time compared to guys in cities with lots of chicks… NYC, maybe Sydney? I don’t know Australia.

The author,

I’ve decided that Tinder worked a hell of a lot better as a hook-up app, than it does as serious dating one, and that these strange textual romances—sterile, devoid of physical communication or exchange—can only produce a skewed experience of person, that might, in theory, be rectifiable via some promptly organised outbreak of touch, sensual engagement and sexual exploration. But in practice, they only lead to an equally sterile series of dates.

I don’t know this guy, but there are several possibilities: he’s ugly, he’s in the wrong place, he has no game, he doesn’t understand evolutionary biology, or like most guys he shouldn’t be using Tinder. He needs to learn daygame and get offline. He needs to spend more time with the squat and deadlift.

Guys who try Tinder today suffer, unless they’re extremely good looking. Tinder and all apps also now have systems that reward new users and punish existing ones. The only way they work is to boot it up, pay for one month, use it for two weeks or so, cancel the subscription, and then re-activate a month or two later to get fresh matches.

Mostly, though, guys are better off hitting the gym and learning daygame. That guy is like three-quarters right, but he’s missing some key elements he can learn through game.

Paul Janka’s street hustling and escalation

Paul Janka’s street hustling and escalation. It’s a great essay. I’m not as aggressive as that guy, at least not in the approach and initial encounter. Maybe I’ve been doing it wrong.

I wonder if he is just very good looking. Or if he is just filtering for “yes” girls and being overly aggro in many sets, thus setting himself back.

Regardless, I can’t read this and not be impressed.

‘The desire to have a child never goes away’: how the involuntarily childless are forming a new movement

“‘The desire to have a child never goes away’: how the involuntarily childless are forming a new movement” is framed partially correctly and partially incorrect. The real story is, “Women prefer banging hot guys who don’t care much about them more than they want a family with a boring dude.”

Until it’s too late. Biology is a cruel master and pretty much no one in college and universities explains it. So you get these women who don’t understand that their own actions have consequences.

I read this just a day after posting “Catch and release women who want families.” I personally know some of these involuntarily childless women (not the ones in the article obviously but the ones who just waited too long). On the surface they often say they didn’t want children anyway, or it just “never happened.” “It just never happened” is a typical phrase players know well: for a lot of women, “it just happened” or “it just didn’t happen.” They have no agency in the issue. They’re just a pinball in the world of men.

So a player’s job is to make things appear to “just happen” for her. So many women deny their own agency. That used to baffle me, until I realized that men and women have some key biological and psychological differences that create different outcomes (on average… I have met very driven, self-aware women, but they are outside the norm).

Most women cannot have a fulfilled life without children. They prioritize, often unconsciously, the wrong parts of their life, and then they’re surprised when age catches up with them.

(Also, half of Americans will be obese by age 35. Think about that. Fat women cannot attract the kind of man they’d want to have kids with.)

Catch and release women who want families

This is a controversial one, and it’s only relevant to guys with intermediate or advanced game.

I think it’s wise to release older chicks (at least age 25, likely older) who want to have a family, when you (a man) don’t want one, or don’t want one yet, or don’t want one with her.

This point emerges emerges from Nash’s post, Back to daygame, a breakup, and a close call. He breaks up with an amazing girl, Miss Thick, because “her kids/family goals were real and that I respected them.” I wanted to know how old she is…

She is 29… and from China. She’s a “Chinese” girl at heart… but an artsy, and unusual one.

Then I like the idea of letting her go and not having her dangle a lot of prime reproductive years. Let her go and tell her that, if her next serious relationship doesn’t work out, she can come back for a month or two of fun and recovery. She may come back or she may not.

That’s in line with what I wrote about frame and non-monogamy

over time [most] women have a biological need to find guys to have kids with and subsidize them and their kids. That’s part of the reason long-term, undefined, FWBs-type relationships are so uncommon. Few chicks will allow them, at least past the age of 25. Even if they do, they will drop the FWB when they find a hot-enough provider guy.

(If you’re dating a chick under the age of 25 in a contemporary Western country, you can ignore the last two paragraphs, because chicks that age are all about the feelz and the hot sex.)

Players know that it’s uncommon to have an undefined FWB-type relationship with a girl for more than a few months. Even six months without the “where are we going?” talk is uncommon, because most chicks who don’t have a family want one. They may f**k up en route to getting a family, they may hit menopause, they may say they want one thing while in a cold state and do another thing while horny, but they want a family most of the time.

[Nash says “Lover” is a better word than “FWB,” and I also misstated minor parts of Nash’s story.]

Guys who are dating women over age 26 – 29 should cut those women free and tell them, “Girl, go get your provider guy.” This advice goes against some of the “Red Pill” comments amid the hardass maxims of anger phase warriors.

Guys can string along a girl through a lot of her prime fertility years… yes, the girl should be responsible and break it off, but girls are weak, just like guys, and prone to wishful thinking… just like guys. Guys who put girls in that position will also often find… SURPRISE!… the birth control failed and you’re going to be a DADDY! You jack her around, she’ll jack you around.

It’s unnecessary to waste years of a woman’s prime child-bearing life, and a guy with strong game will find another girl, maybe a better one. So the chick who wants kids the guy isn’t going to willingly provide should be released. Her family is the most important part of her life and you should help her lead her best life.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t sleep with chicks age 25 – 40. That would be insane. Those chicks want one-night stands and orgasms and hot lovers, just like younger chicks. I’m only saying you shouldn’t string them along for long periods of prime fertility time. You should be direct about not being their baby’s father. It’s tempting to tell her, “Maybe I’ll want kids… someday…” while her eggs wither.

Be the bigger person and enable people to live the right way. For most women, that means letting her have her family. Normal girls in the right age bracket who want kids will leave the guy when she figures out he’s a player, but some need the push. Be honest, then let her go when she’s ready.

If a guy gets into a position of strength, he should get into the habit of helping people build the right lives (this is NOT being a doormat “nice guy”). Guys in a position of strength and choice shouldn’t string along chicks in their prime fertility years. Guys in a position of strength should try to help others become who they are meant to become.

I don’t preach about living better. Not much. I do show it. That means zero sugar. That means inviting chicks (and guys!) to the gym. Obviously I’m not doing deadlifting on the first date. But if I’m going to the gym I invite her to go with me, whoever the “her” is. I’ve probably taught ten or fifteen girls how to swim for exercise or how to lift. That’s ten or fifteen more than most guys. If a girl is going to become part of my life, she’s going to do what I do and learn how to do it. Most guys have lives of TV, video games, and Internet. Not much of interest to a girl in there.

Those girls also know I’m serious about the body. Talking about the joys of lifting in an online dating profile won’t totally repel fatties but it will help. And when I meet a girl for a drink for a first date, if she’s too fat, sometimes I’ll just leave… I’ve invite her to the gym. Not necessarily that night but in two days or whenever. Their reactions are funny. Especially the ones who say, “Are you saying I’m fat?” Easy response: “I’m saying I’m going to the gym and you should come.”

In a position of strength, a guy can say, “I want you to go find a man who will give you a family. In the meantime, if you want to keep having fun with me, do it. If you find a guy and things don’t work out and you want a break, text me.”

Sometimes she will. Chicks can be like comets, swinging into a guy’s solar system for a couple weeks at a time.

I also have weird ethics. I think women in the 29 – 40 age range who genuinely want children should be released by guys who catch them and who have investment from those women. This essay only applies to a guy with a woman who is invested. If she’s not invested it doesn’t count.

If a guy’s game is strong and he’s in the secret society, he won’t have trouble moving on to the next woman. But in my ethical inversion, I like sleeping with chicks who have boyfriends or husbands (now you can see why I don’t talk about the deepest shit with people I know). Not even swingers or poly people will admit that kind of thing. I think humans are ill-equipped for long-term monogamy and that if she’s available for seduction, I want me in her instead of some other guy swooping in. Among humans, women are the guardians of sex, men are the guardians of commitment. Feminism tries to obscure that basic fact, but it is true.

Next post up should continue the non-monogamy theme. It’s the one I keep mentioning, about how sex clubs layer on top of conventional game. In my view, for the right man they are a powerful tool, but I don’t think I’ve seen any active game guys writing about them.

Addition: “I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life”  is a case study of a woman who fails to realize that family matters more than partying. I’ve dated and f**ked women like her. She is the sort of woman who a guy not interested family should catch & release. She is also in New York, where the male-female ratio favors men because there are more women than men. The dumb writers of these articles and letters never talk about this. Failure to talk ratio and dating market is like watching people trying to calculate curves & trajectories without calculus. Doesn’t work well.

“Why women prefer male bosses”

“Why women prefer male bosses” won’t entertain the obvious answer: because on average male bosses are better and less likely to leave the industry.

Feminists don’t like to say this, but in industry everyone knows that most women who have kids quit work or downshift their careers. Yes, there are exceptions. One of my key mentors was a woman who didn’t downshift, but she’s the exception and she knew she was the exception. She was reluctant to mentor younger women because she’d tried before. She’d mentor them, then a couple years in they’d have a kid and goodbye.

That’s also why jobs like nursing, teaching, and pharmacy are so popular among women. They have relatively short training periods. Women can get up and running by age 25 if not sooner. They don’t have a lot of headroom or upward mobility, but those professions are all ones that make it easy to drop in and drop out of the workforce.

Reality exists independently of the dumb assertions many people (especially feminists) emit.

You could just, you know, look at women’s real priorities and infer labor market outcomes from that, or you can screech DISCRIMINATION and PATRIARCHY on Twitter instead of working.

Attention is the only tool modern men have

“Attention is the only tool modern men have,” like all Red Quest posts, are now on Substack.

“Let’s say a girl is acting bitchy,” is a good post.

“When having a boundary crossed actually means you’ll walk out, and you have zero tolerance for bullshit, it will show up as soon as the micro transgressions happen. This permeates the whole thing since your very first moment.”

The only real tool modern men have at their disposal is attention. You either give attention or withdraw it. That’s really it, and the rest is commentary, except maybe for deciding when, where, why, and how to give or withdraw attention. When a guy blows up some girl’s phone, he’s dissipating one of the only (or the only) tool(s) he has. Where and how he directs his attention is the fundamental of modern game…and I have many thoughts about modern game.

A wonderful book by David Barash, Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy, lists all the tools men used to have to enforce monogamy. They could kill their wife’s lover… seriously, that used to be legal in many parts of the United States… “Until the 1970s, it was entirely legal in several states for a husband to kill his wife’s lover if he caught them in flagrante.” Today, if your wife takes a lover and has his kid and then divorces you, she still gets your money and child support. Men had physical force. They had the weight of society enforcing monogamy, and, back then, women would be ashamed for breaking up their marriage. “Historically, in many cultures, the murder of an adulterous wife and/or her lover has not only been condoned but encouraged.”

Abandoned women used to face big consequences, unlike today, when most women leave the moment they think they can get a better guy, and then are rewarded with cash and prizes by the Orwellianly named “family court” system. Once upon a time, “The bottom line: male lethality is unquestionably real, especially in the context of sexual competition, and even more when the competition is immediate and involves direct access to a man’s sexual ‘rights’ and ‘property,’ which is to say, women.”

Personally I prefer the system we have now, which doesn’t entail nearly as much death or non-consensual, but the system today also tells people monogamy doesn’t work and it’s great to f**k around.

It is pretty much a cross cultural universal that men intimidate their spouses to refrain from extramarital sex, punishing them—often severely and not uncommonly, lethally—should they do so.

That’s Professor Barash too. Obviously that’s not true today (and nor am I advocating that it be true), but imagine what a society devoted to working towards monogamy would look like. Until you have read evolutionary biology, you likely don’t understand the game. You might think you know, but you’re still acting on superstition and chance.

In the contemporary world, men don’t have violence or social censure as an option… we have nothing but attention itself. When you give a woman attention, you reinforce whatever behavior she is offering. When you withdraw attention, you convey your displeasure with that behavior.

This is also why I think most men should not use most social media, or minimize use, cause social media gives women attention and validation that is unlikely to lead to sex. A woman loves attention almost as much as a man loves sex; giving too much to her is an easy way to kill her attraction to you. Whatever is scarce is valuable. Offer too much attention and you will demonstrate that your attention is low value. High-value men are too busy building companies, making art, seducing women, and having peak experiences to offer attention, especially lame digital attention, to women who do not reciprocate their attention appropriately. High-value men are also not spending a lot of time on social media because they are in the real world, doing things, making things, building things, and having sex. If a woman is responsive online but doesn’t want to meet in person, then you’re not moving towards sex and can let her go.

It’s not impossible to use social media well, but it’s never or pretty much never a good idea to “like” women’s photos and statutes. Yet I see guys do this all the time. As more people exist primarily in the fake digital space, guys who can drive interactions in the real world will become more and more valuable.

When a woman crosses a boundary, withdraw attention. Better yet, give attention to other, better behaved women. Guys with options are very different than guys without. Girls know you have options when you shut the fuck up.

“Shutting the fuck up.” No one talks about this in today’s verbal diarrhea culture, but because no one talks about it or does it, it’s valuable.

Chicks also know you’re high value when you stop giving them attention and start directing your attention in the only places you should: your skills, your life, the women who are having actual sex with you.

Excessive texting is a waste of attention. Texting should be focused on your next meeting. You are a busy man, as I wrote above. Focus your attention on making real-life things happen. You can do a little bit of texting, that’s fine, but always be focused on making texting an unimportant adjunct to your real life. Today, this will also set you apart from other guys. Less is more, in most circumstances.

Social media is another form of attention, and most guys misuse it. Social media is an attractive nuisance. It’s attractive, because guys imagine that, if they can just get a good enough Instagram feed, hot chicks will message them for hookups. For the vast majority of guys, this will never happen. The vast majority of guys are better off learning cold approach pickup, improving themselves, improving their delivery, etc. But social media is easy and can be done without leaving the apartment. For inexperienced guys, social media takes the perceived sting out of real-world rejection. So the temptation is to take the way that seems easy (social media) but leads nowhere, instead of the way that at first seems hard (cold approach pickup, developing an attractive life) that leads somewhere.

Overall, lots of women screw around, but they’re much more secretive about it than men are. “DNA fingerprinting has recently revealed that among many species, including Homo Sapiens, females are more inclined to sexual variety than had previously been thought: that is, to polyandry.” If she’s inclined that way, you need to be ready for it.

Jealousy exists because it’s useful, “If women weren’t polyandrous—selected to engage, on occasion, in sexual relationships with more than one male—then men wouldn’t be disposed to violent mate guarding in the first place.” Today, we’ve got to be diligent about not wasting our scarce attention resources on chicks who haven’t earned them. Most guys tragically lack game and thus abundance, and their lack shows.

Frame. And why non-monogamy helps make me more diligent about diet and body

I’ve written about why sugar is evil and have alluded to the much-discussed need for guys to lift, so I won’t belabor those points here. Every guy who gets into the game or Red Pill worlds learns about why lifting and style are important, and if you don’t know why by now I hope you found this via a Google search because I don’t know what to tell you otherwise.

Non-monogamy has made me more diligent than the average game guy about diet, swimming, lifting, and yoga.

Like virtually all people who consciously work to quit sugar, at first the discipline necessary is very hard, but over time habits set in and I eventually stopped missing sugar. I learned to taste real food again and got in the Sunday meal-prep practice to ensure that I wasn’t as tempted by easy, quick and horrific foods during the work week.

As guys who get deeply into the game know, the initial parts of game are about attraction and dominance, but most chicks tell themselves that they can eventually tame the bad boy and turn him into a long-term provider-guy (that is basically the plot of all romance novels and romance novels are porn for women: citation one and citation two). Even among players who imply or even explicitly say that they’re only in it for the casual sex, lots of women will fantasize about locking those guys down long-term, or the women will attempt it, as long as the guy has an okay job.

Most normal women want children (eventually, in the case of a very young girl) and most normal women also want to be financially subsidized by a guy. If the guy is also hot and good in bed, that’s a plus. This conflict between short-term hots and long-term provision is fundamental and explained by evolutionary biology.

So even among women who are being picked up on the street, there is an element of “will this guy be my long-term provider?” that arises at some point. Initially it may be and probably will be all about the seduction and the hot sex, and most guys underperform in being hot, dominant, and playful because society teaches them to do the opposite.

But over time women have a biological need to find guys to have kids with and subsidize them and their kids. That’s part of the reason long-term, undefined, FWBs-type relationships are so uncommon. Few chicks will allow them, at least past the age of 25. Even if they do, they will drop the FWB when they find a hot-enough provider guy.

(If you’re dating a chick under the age of 25 in a contemporary Western country, you can ignore the last two paragraphs, because chicks that age are all about the feelz and the hot sex.)

At sex parties, the provider part of the equation goes away almost entirely, at least for a night of passion (and the provider part, as I said, is not relevant for most chicks under the age of 25 in contemporary Western countries). The chick probably already has a primary partner who she evaluates in part for his material characteristics. The new guy needs to primarily be a hot sex guy. So she’s evaluating the guy much more along the physical lines than even a normal chick during pickup.

That’s why I’m so hardcore about the sugar thing and so hardcore about lifting weights, swimming, and lately yoga (post on that coming soon). If you’re going to do sex clubs and non-monogamy, the need for good looks and strong sexual skills go up, because chicks aren’t much evaluating you, even subconsciously, as a long-term provider guy. It becomes all about the sex.

In the sex clubs, it’s also common to strip, pretty quickly, to underwear. She will see you fucking your main girl, too, so she will be able to evaluate your body and sex quality in a very tangible, immediate way. Hot guys with good sex skills get more swap choices.

In contrast, most pickup and online dating is conducted primarily clothed. She can obviously tell some things about your body, but by the time she sees you nude she will probably already have crossed the sex rubicon or gotten close to it. She can also likely tell herself a story about how she can turn you into a provider long term, at least if she really likes you.

Or she’s just drunk and horny and doesn’t care.

For all humans, though, attraction starts with the body. Just like it does online. Online, women mostly judge your pictures, and I’m not even going to link to my piece about why guys doing online dating need to learn basic photography.

Improve your body and you will do better. It is possible for attractive guys in particular to have no game and fail, but it’s much less likely.

FRAME

Bringing women into sex clubs and parties also brings them deeply into a frame outside the mainstream. Those girls will lose their mainstream frame and gain a “sex-positive” frame (you can frame the frame more negatively, if you want). Some will enter that frame temporarily, then go back to conventional frames; that’s what happened to the woman I write about in “Women want to follow your lead: a story about a woman presenting two ways.” This is actually a very common story because most women want a family and children at some point, and going to sex clubs is not overly compatible with family and children: there is too much jealousy, competition, and risk for most couples to make that work. There are some women who don’t want kids or have already had them, and they are often the glue holding a club or a city’s scene together. Most women over age 40 aren’t objects of intense desire, so their presence or absence isn’t as important.

I’m rambling, as I tend to do, but point is that many women can be led into the sex club frame, but as they begin to think long term they will also fall out of that frame. The diet and lifting help a lot with the initial attraction and dominance parts of the seduction, but for women they’re less important for long-term compatibility. Most people, given enough time, almost stop noticing each other’s physical attractiveness, which is part of the reason long-term relationships are in my view so hard.

So a chick will think about the long-term project, realize I’m not good for that, and we’ll break up. Often it’s better if I break up with her or even seed the idea that she should find a father/husband guy who isn’t going to be me, no matter what she does. Being honest in this way means that the chick is less likely to do an angry, scorched-earth breakup because she thinks she’s been lied to. I don’t talk about long-term life goals on second dates but somewhere in there I give chicks my theory of relationships and that helps them decide what to do with or about me.

Many of those girls will leave to pursue a long-term relationship guy. Sometimes the things with that guy works out. Sometimes they don’t. When they don’t, they will often swing back around to me. Fine with me. I often wish girls good luck when they go.

The smartest and most conscientious women know and understand the gap between fun sex guys and long-term guys. They know the two don’t always overlap. And when it comes down to it, they choose the long-term play.