Game-aware guys being “poly” or “open”

(A response to Nash’s comment.)

Guys who know they can get laid have a very different experience from guys who don’t, and from this basic difference follows many differences in views, outlooks, and beliefs. I’m not saying a guy must go out on a random day or night and come back with a chick a few hours later (I can’t, of course), but a guy who knows he’s got options differs from one who doesn’t, or whose options are marginal. The options can come from game, ecosystem, doesn’t matter… “scarcity” versus “abundance” are often discussed in these contexts. A guy is as good as his options.

I’m not as big a fan of “poly” identification because most people who identify as poly are ugly, which seems to be true of women as well as men. But with an otherwise attractive chick a guy wants to keep on rotation without real commitment, who might not want to do randoms, saying “poly” and finding another couple or couples to date can work.

I don’t get hungup on the particular terms “poly” or “open” because I don’t care that much. If “poly” lets me keep her on rotation for a longer period of time as a FWB / lover, because she knows my love is too great for only a single person, just like hers, that’s fine with me (and that has happened). “Ethically non-monogamous” (ENM) and “consensual non-monogamy” can be used as labels too. Good sex without obligation on my part? Okay, yeah, sure, whatever it takes, yeah, I’m ENM poly, good enough for me. Pass the joint, will you?

Nash says,

for me the “poly” community is a fucking mess. I live in CA and I am surrounded by these folks… and it’s an ugly shitshow. I watch guys “try” this all the time, and they are a fucking sad bunch, mostly.

Can’t disagree. That’s the average and the median.

The average poly person is a fuckup and idiot, and I’m happy to acknowledge that. The worst advocates for poly are poly people themselves, and they are the most public and vocal advocates too.

To me, game, poly, open, motorcycles, online dating, paying for sex… these are all tools. I’m describing the tools, how they work, how they work for me, how they could work for others, how they are (frequently) mishandled. The tools a guy uses depend on his goals, and most guys flail because they have no tools and have given zero thought to their lives. I don’t use all tools all the time. I’ve not paid for quite a while. That isn’t because I’m too good for it or found the Buddha or whatever… I’ve been busy with more conventional pursuits, so I’ve not needed or wanted it.

Tools can be combined in various ways: having an incredibly hot girl in a semi-paid relationship who then goes to sex clubs can multiply the effect of both tools…. I only recommend thinking about paid relationships for guys who are 35+ and have more income than time. Younger guys should be out working on their game and improving their value, not paying for it. 

Game guys have found a great tool. But I think about how some of the other tools fit into game, and how game fits into some of the other tools. Most guys in game don’t write much about the other tools, like non-monogamy. Most guys who like and write about paying for it, don’t write about game. Red Quest is an effort to fill in some gaps in the conversation and idea space. 

I also don’t ask and don’t tell. When the recent girl asked me how many partners I’ve had, I didn’t leap forward to say (if she’d pressed I would’ve said). But I didn’t ask her the same question and when I told her I never ask that question of women, I meant it.

I am being something very close to inconsistent here, but that’s the way I am.

If you’re inconsistent and know it, that’s okay. I’m a little more worried about people who are wildly inconsistent and don’t know, also known as the entire human population.

That Krauser post helped me write this post: When guys talk past each other, it’s often good to go a couple levels deeper to try and figure out what is really going on (a subject I have more to say about in a future post). There may be some deeper synthesis beyond the surface. There are levels in the discussion, and a guy at one level may be invisible or incomprehensible to a guy at another level. A guy who hasn’t had to deal with the girls attempting to angle him into a relationship, will probably not find my ideas about non-monogamy of great utility. The player who’s lost otherwise nice fresh puss to “we need to be exclusive” is more likely to find these ideas revelatory.    

Personally, I’m less moved by pure novelty than some guys. Don’t get me wrong, I like novelty, but I don’t automatically lose interest in a chick after nailing her a couple times. This obviously depends on personality and other factors too. I got overly excited about this girl because our personalities mesh well.

Right now, society is in flux. Legal marriage does not work for a very large number of people, and no one knows what comes next. “Bitter divorce that screws up the kids” is a very common outcome, as are dead marriages that stumble onwards from inertia. So are couples who don’t like each but stay together “for the sake of the kids.” “Co-parenting” is on the rise. Almost no girls I talked to about non-monogamy back in 2011 or 2012 had it on their radar or in their cultural lexicon: today, many do. A lot of guys start in game, but game, pursued actively enough, becomes a path into seeing the matrix. Most of us recoil from seeing what’s beneath the surface. Will you? 

Did it

Despite the “Story update on the 20-year-old,” we did get together late last night, which caused suffering today but was worth it. I’ve also remembered something I discovered a long time ago: the greater the logistical hassles, the more my interest declines in the girl. The older I get, the greater this effect.

Sometimes, however, this can have a paradoxical effect. I lose interest, and the girl gets more interested because she senses my uninterest. More often, I lose interest and so does she. That’s probably why I have so many long and pretty cold leads, and why sudden re-ignitions or techniques like this can work.

Speaking of the 20-year-old, there will likely be one or two days of overlap between her getting back and me leaving. No idea whether that will work. I’m still into her, but flakey or just logistically complicated girls turn me off over time.

I’m beat, but there are probably a handful of you curious about the (mostly surprise) outcome. I also have two pretty good pieces coming along, based on replies to comments.

Still not sure I’m actually going to see this one again.

Story update on the 20-year-old

Nothing has happened with the 20-year-old from this story, and we keep making tentative plans that are scuppered by various stupid young girl things. Some of her minor health problems are also in play, e.g. she has a medical appointment tonight, which I think is genuine, but the timing is also bad for me.

So this one hasn’t died off altogether, as she’s still responsive. Someone is going to point out that if she really wanted to make this happen, she would. That’s obviously true, but it’s also true that people have complicated lives, and many girls are random. I’ve gotten a lot of lays and short-term relationships off situations not exactly like this one, but pretty similar overall, where the girl seems flighty or chaotic but does eventually show up. The line isn’t dead and she’s apologetic in texting.

Most often girls just ghost when they’re uninterested.

This one hasn’t ghosted, and if she’s milking me for attention I’m not sure she’s getting much. I’m staying pretty close to logistics chat, with a little other stuff as well. I keep telling myself that if this is going to happen, it’s going to happen, and if not, life goes on. She’s going home tomorrow (college girls…) and coming back “Sunday or Monday.” A bad sign but not a fatal one. There are some things we’ve tentatively planned (because of her sexual personality I invited her to sex party in a couple weeks), one of them a thing she claims she’s long wanted to do but never done, and that I know about because I know these things.

I just really want it to happen.

I remember once, probably six or seven years ago, meeting this chick in a bar. She was very responsive to me and my friend who was out with me. She invited us to go to another bar with her, but for some reason I didn’t think it was a good idea to go immediately. She seemed like a girl playing games. We did go down an hour or so later and she was already grinding on / making out with another guy, as was her friend or whatever.

Maybe the other guy was her boyfriend, maybe something else was going on, I don’t know, but I did kick myself for being “cool” instead of just saying yes. Sometimes hard pursuit is the right thing to do.

A guy in another thread asks, “You refer to ‘less is more’ with long game.. How long between pings is recommended here?” There is no right answer and it turns out my answer is long enough to be a post. I also began a post in response to this Nash comment. I may have a problem in that I can’t explain things in like a paragraph. Too many little complications, etc.

Or I’m pouring erotic energy into writing instead of where it should be poured.

Open or poly relationships from the superior position or inferior position

If you read guys talking about pickup and adjacent areas, you’ve seen guys slagging open and poly relationships because those guys are thinking of themselves in a relationship with a chick who is continually getting laid by new guys, while he doesn’t have the game to go sleep with new chicks (he might be subsidizing her financially, too). The comments slag open relationships as a way for chicks to do hypergamy while guys are loser “beta bucks” providers… the guy is sitting at home paying the bills while she’s out f**king. For guys without game, who are struggling to hang onto one woman, open relationships are terrible, or would be terrible; sexual scarcity is their biggest problem. It’s their biggest problem and they can’t imagine a world without sexual scarcity, cause they experience nothing but sexual scarcity. Their friends experience sexual scarcity. They don’t lift. They don’t work to improve themselves and their lives. They probably don’t understand women.

Those guys aren’t going to find a lot of my writing useful, except for the relatively rare beginning posts. I, on the other hand, look at open and poly relationships as a possible game tool that solves a set of problems players have. See the linked post for my reasoning and experience, but, the short version is, open relationships leverage one chick in order to sleep with other chicks and also transform the “Where is this going?” conversation chicks begin after hooking up with a guy for a while. Guys who have good game and a lot of women in the air often want to retain women who are eager to get into that monogamous, exclusive relationship.

These guys have a different set of problems that the guys with no woman or (barely) one woman. Non-monogamy can solve some problems for guys already experiencing abundance. Non-monogamy looks like a hellscape to guys who aren’t experiencing abundance.

I also advocate that men don’t marry and don’t cohabitate. Marriage is a system for transferring resources from a man to a woman for the sake of raising children, but that system broke down a long time ago for reasons too long to detail right now: Real World Divorce explains why men should not marry today, under almost any circumstance. A legally married guy should be careful with open or poly.

(Before someone says so, I’ll acknowledge that yes, in some ways “open relationships” and “poly relationships” are different, but for players the distinction is irrelevant, and the right pitch depends on the girl’s personality.)

For a game-aware guy in the superior position, “open” relationships are a handy contrivance to increase sexual availability and keep FWBs / lovers going over the longer term. As every player who has ever lost chicks to the “Where is this going?” conversation knows, most chicks who are into a guy want to “advance” the relationship from hooking up / casual dating to serious dating to cohabitation to marriage. At least chicks think they want marriage, but their view of marriage is based on fairy tales, Disney stories, and TV / movies. Some chicks genuinely do want marriage but many don’t; they’ve just been told by society since they were little girls that marriage is the right thing to do and that they will be a beautiful bride/princess on their wedding day. Legally, too, marriage gives a woman an option on at least 50% of a man’s assets and future earnings in the event she feels like divorcing him, so she’s going to be eager to marry. Getting off topic here in the anti-marriage rant… importantly, the “Where is this going?” conversation kills most uncommitted relationships. The woman in a lover or friends-with-benefits relationship with a guy she likes or loves will most often demand that he become exclusive, or she will break up, or she will find another guy she judges to be high status enough. The “branch swing” guys fear often happens when the woman isn’t getting what she wants from a casual relationship, so moves on to a guy who will give her the official, socially acknowledged girlfriend status she wants.

Most players just let chicks go after a couple weeks/months, when the chick asks “Where is this going?” Or, some players will become the chick’s “boyfriend” while still f**king, or attempting to f**k, other chicks… inevitably the guy gets caught and the girl is angry. Maybe she scorches him to her friends and cuts off all contact, etc., while saying online that all men are dogs, players, etc. She ignores her own complicity in choosing hot fun players over stolid provider guys, but we’ll ignore that for the time being, cause point is that players have probably seen angry chick behavior. The “boyfriend while pulling chicks on the side” technique works, but at a potential cost.

Open relationships and sex clubs, however, can offer a solution to the “Where is this going?” conversation: a guy can sleep with a chick for a couple months, until she’s into him, then propose taking her to sex clubs or similar venues, while building up the idea of consensual non-monogamy in her mind. This solution can retain her, increase novelty, and make it somewhat easier to sleep with new chicks. If you have not brought a hot chick to a couples-only sex club, you probably don’t know what real raw sexual power looks like.

But this only works for guys with good game (good value) to start with. Should you lack good, strong game, you will be unhappy if you rub this lamp and find the genie that pops out.

A guy also has to be ready to lose the chick he wants to take to a sex club. A chick who is serious about marriage and family will dump a guy who wants to do non-monogamy, as she should. Most young chicks, however, are not serious about monogamy, and even many older chicks will take a cool player for a ride while still seeking the guy who will give her children.

Players are not much afraid of losing a chick. If one chick goes, another will come. A basic guy is worried that he’ll never again get a chick as hot as his one and only girlfriend. A player knows the next one might be hotter, better in bed, etc. A player is not phased by one chick’s exit. For a basic guy, his girlfriend leaving might be perceived as a catastrophe. The basic guy needs to level up his game, his body, his being, but he probably doesn’t have the fortitude to do those things.

Overall, open or poly is a way to keep her on the rotation while forestalling her dropping out. In my view it is still better to catch and release older women who want families, but the open or poly frame can help make a woman’s forebrain align enough with her hindbrain to make her stick around. A guy should make sure a typical woman’s primeval hindbrain and recent, reasoning forebrain agree with each other, if she’s going to be more than a one-night stand or short fling. The poly system / frame can make her intellectual framework agree with what she is doing sexually. Without that framework, most chicks will eventually dump a guy who won’t marry or commit. Almost no one thinks for themselves or questions the society they live in. That applies doubly to chicks, who are creatures of the herd.

At the same time, chicks have lots of naughty fantasies they generally won’t share with other people, including, frequently, group sex fantasies. Nancy Friday’s books, the success of 50 Shades of Grey, and the entire romance novel industry show this. Many chicks will act on those fantasies in a given space (spring break, Vegas, bachelorette parties, while drinking) but then deny them to themselves and to others later.

Poly/open is an alternate system that can allow a chick to tell herself that what she’s doing is okay and even desirable. A guy who is discreet and non-judgmental can often draw these feelings out of her. Most chicks are used to being judged harshly by their parents, their religious figures, their boyfriends, their bitch girlfriends, etc. If you can guide her into admitting her naughty fantasies, then making some of them happen, you will be unlike any other guy. Many chicks actively fantasize about having sex with men and women simultaneously, but most chicks don’t think they’ll ever get to act on those fantasies.

Bi women also make great wingmen. A truly bi woman can lead to a huge number of threesomes, etc. The first woman is the hardest…. the next ones can turn out to be very easy, if you learn how it’s done. Standard male-female online dating seems to have gone to shit in recent years, but unconventional online dating has proven to be resilient in my experience.

This superior/inferior situation reminds me of the Krauser post, Reveal vs Restructure,

So why the divergence in opinion? I think it comes down to which side of this divide you fall on. Is your Journey a process of:

* Uncovering a pre-existing SMV and personality that is attractive to women, or;
* Ridding yourself of a Pussy Repellent virus and then building an attractive man from scratch.

The [trainee Chads] are normal men with normal social skills and outlook and inhabit bodies that are reasonably attractive to a wide range of women. Some will require more work than others but all are building on a strong base. It’s like cooking a meal starting with fresh organic high quality ingredients. These men already have decent value, they just lack a Value Delivery Mechanism. Teaching them game is like having an out-of-shape teenage Usain Bolt show up on his first day of Learn To Sprint school. They have to put in the work but the rewards are almost immediate. There’s never any real struggle.

In contrast, [frustrated chumps] are a broken mess and the older they are upon discovering game the more traumatic the transformation. Whereas tChad just needs a daygame model and a shove in the back to start opening, fChump needs a complete overhaul of his entire personality and lifestyle.

If you read about game online, this distinction and the endless debates it engenders will be apparent. Guys starting from a very low point have a way different experience than guys starting from a normal point, or a high point with high underlying value.

For a high-value guy, the problem is often retention. High-value guys can get attractive girls for sex pretty easily, but most girls will pursue monogamy (or “monogamy” for the guy, while the girl “slips up” or “makes a mistake” every so often) from a guy they like, and dump him if he won’t offer it. I don’t want to go chase new skirt every month, when the previous girl wants to know where this is going. I want to make her into my implicit wingman.

I see a similar distinction among the few who look at open relationships from a game-aware perspective, like myself, as a tool for retention and novelty, versus the more common outlook who see open relationships from the perspective of a guy whose wife, girlfriend, or partner wants to sleep around on him. He knows he likely doesn’t have the skill to seduce and sleep with new women, while women interested in casual or semi-casual sex have no problem finding it. They can ask virtually any straight man they know for sex and get it. He, however, knows he is going to be thinking about his wife or girlfriend in the throes of passion with another man while he is watching Game of Thrones. The low-status guy doesn’t get the high-status guy’s problems at all.  He can barely even conceive of them. So when he hears about the non-monogamy strategy, he’s like, “Ugh, gross.”

She’s bored, he’s a loser. That’s the usual media frame. I’m describing something very different, where he’s high value and she knows he’ll find another girl if she bails. That world is very different.

Want to do non-monogamy from the superior position? The free ebook Sex Clubs, Non-Monogamy, and Game explains in detail how to.

I am updating this with another example of a woman being against poly… this story about a 42-year-old New York woman trying to get married and have a family, late… she’s been on the shelf way too long. She finds, “If I wanted to be in a polyamorous relationship, or something purely sexual, I’d never be lonely. But I’m looking for the traditional thing and that’s just hard to find in my age range.” How many men are realizing that “poly” is a way to juggle multiple women in sexual relationships that lack true commitment? I define “true commitment” as involving kids, or, barring that, some kind of financial cross-subsidization. Poly rarely does either. Normal, intellectually honest women understand this… how many of those are out there, though?

The game challenge: doing what’s unnatural

After this girl got in my head, I’ve felt the overwhelming urge to over-contact her. I know intellectually that to give into that urge is a mistake (the same urge I felt with the girl in the last third of this post). Any time I start to think about her, and the crush brewing, I have to stop myself and ask the key question, “Will you sending her something right now raise your chances or lower them?”

I know the answer is “lower them.” If you, dear reader, know anything about game, you know that little kills attraction as fast as neediness. But in my excitement about her, I want to send her a text or Snapchat; yes, she’s so young she still uses Snapchat. I want her to be as excited about me as I am about her, but I’m pretty sure she’s not.

This is also a problem I have in particular with girls who let me go in bare. The connection is much, much stronger and deeper than if I wear a condom. With a condom it’s still good, don’t get me wrong, but it’s never as overpowering and amazing and connecting as it is without. Online, everyone claims to consistently use condoms. Offline, in the real world, it’s another story.

The more general lesson about game is that game teaches guys to do things that are “unnatural” or that they wouldn’t think to do on their own. It’s like boxing or yoga in that respect. In boxing, you must be trained to step back with your back foot, or a trained opponent will smite you. In yoga, most of us don’t think carefully about our alignment and range of motion unless we receive specific training in it. In game, it’s often best to cold approach strangers (not my strongest skillset to be honest). To not contact as much as you’d like to contact.

There are others, I’m sure, and if you’re a guy reading this and have good examples, leave them in the comments or write about them on your own blog. I’m sure I’m missing many examples.

Another (possible) example: inexperienced, stupid guys have a tendency to put a girl on a pedestal, which is exactly the wrong frame. The right frame is to understand that for pretty much every pretty girl out there, some guy is fucking her. My goal as a man is to be that guy.

The best thing I can say to the girl from Thursday, this weekend, is nothing. I got a strong positive Snapchat from her on Friday morning, reciprocated somewhat Friday evening, and got something back from her right after I sent it, but I know I need to chill the fuck out. The next time I can plausibly see her is Monday. It bugs to me to know there’s a very good chance she’s out partying and possibly fucking other guys this weekend, but I have no strong way to counter that and personal commitments as well.

I need to focus on my goals for this weekend, but the girl from Thursday keeps popping into my head. Because this seems hard to me, I write them out instead. It’s hard for me not to open Darktable on my MacBook and check out the pics I took, but I know that’s a mistake for my psychologically. Part of the game (part of being alive and effective, really) is managing your own psychology. Typically I’m pretty good at this, but this one has lodged in my head. It’s probably just her hotness that’s fogging me. I need to put her out of my mind and hope that writing this will let me do so.

Slept with a twenty-year-old last night:

I slept with a twenty-year-old last night, and the amount of “game” required was minimal. She was a friend/roommate of an intern (more or less) I’ve kept in touch with, and I met the friend about a year ago while out for drinks. She has a nose ring and is sort of artistic seeming; at the time we first met I mixed some light sex talk and innuendos into the conversation, but logistics were against me and more importantly I didn’t want to vigorously hit on a girl who is connected to work, however tangentially. The attraction was there, however, primarily through eye contact. If you haven’t yet discovered the virtues of very strong eye contact, you should. And if you know of any game guides to eye contact, please post them, because I don’t have any at my fingertips.

It’s hard to describe the game when the game is mostly sub-verbal, as this one is. I was affecting something like smooth-older-Don-Draper guy, which seemed appropriate to the situation and age gap. Last year we exchanged contact info and we’ve chatted just a bit here and there. Less is more in the long game, as you are a busy man, right? I thought about whether I should sexualize those conversations but decided not to. She is in town for the summer, and like a lot of young girls she’s very flighty (girls < 22 cannot be consistent moment to moment). She also has a bunch of minor health problems. I wasn’t sure we’d actually meet up, but last night she came out, three drinks at two bars, then to a hotel for sex, which is I think a new experience for her. No LMR, however, and she felt fantastic.

It also seems that no younger women enforce condom usage rules anymore. Bike Girl had a good body but this girl was spectacular naked, much more so than I expected. No chest at all, but everything else about her worked beautifully for me. I have a great pic of her looking over her shoulder at me; she’s obviously topless in the pic but it is more artistic than the pornographic style that usually appeals to me. When I first got into photography I just wanted typical guy stuff, with her naked and showing it all, but I’ve learned that one or two good, girl-friendly pics can make the girl much more into you. If she’s not spreading herself, it’s art, right? Seems to be the girl thinking.

In this 12 April post I was mopey about women and game, but when a solid seven, maybe low eight, much younger woman comes along, it is easy to get excited again. This one also has a relatively straightforward expiration date, assuming it goes further. I’m not sure it will, as she’s a girl who only has “guy friends” (red flag) and who is very sexual. She seems to have an unusually lengthy relationship history for a girl of her age. This weekend one of those “guy friends” is in town to celebrate something to do with school. I wasn’t quite invited along and wasn’t quite not invited along, which is fine because I don’t think it’s a good game move to get enmeshed with a dozen flighty college students. Optics are all wrong and I’d rather imply I have Friday / Saturday plans already.

Interestingly, last night she said that guys her age don’t really hit on her (I don’t believe it, but she said it). She is also a pretend model of some sort. Her n-count is pretty high for her age, I think. She started to ask me how many women I’ve been with, then stopped and said she didn’t want the question turned back on her. I said that I never ask, which is true, and things moved on.

She slept with her brother’s dirtbag 20-year-old friend when she was 15. I’m by far the oldest guy she’s slept with, and her guess as to my age was way low. I knocked a few years off my true age. Unfortunately I was not the best, sexually speaking, as some combination of alcohol and first-time nerves inhibited performance, but I did some cunnilingus things she seems to have enjoyed and not to have experienced before. I think I was “good enough,” but not as good as I need to be.

In other game news, a friend from the sex club circuit hooked me up with her early 30s friend who recently got out of a long-term relationship and was looking for fun over the course of a long-weekend. Saw the picture in advance and we had some pretty easy fun. I attempted a threesome with her and Bike Girl, who has relapsed a bit, but it turns out this woman is not as experimental as she implied or I would hope. She says she doesn’t like sex clubs or BDSM but that she likes listening to her friend’s stories.

I’m not actively seeking new leads, but a lot of older efforts keep paying dividends. Just being flirtatious and temperately aggressive when I see an opening has gone well. I’ve internalized a lot of the behaviors to the point that they’ve become, if not an automatic reflex, then at least heavily ingrained.

I also went to a friend’s wedding recently and attempted to play the two attractive, single women off each other in order to sleep with at least one but utterly failed. It’s been a while since I’ve done any online dating and thinking about my life in the last year or two I see much of the problem with online dating: people with a lot going on who can calibrate socially often find enough opportunities offline that they don’t need to go online.

The chick from this story says she does a lot of online dating and that makes sense to me because she’s hot but also kinda fucked up and dead behind the eyes. I’m not totally knocking online dating and unless I die within the year I will likely do it again at some point. I have though been thinking about the selection bias effects that affect the pool there.

“Glamourising the ‘Childfree Life’ Ignores Reality for Most Childless Women”

Glamourising the ‘Childfree Life’ Ignores Reality for Most Childless Women” is obvious to me and to most observers. Most women who deny this are probably lying to themselves too.

A couple years ago I went out with a woman I knew from high school, and time had not been kind to her. I thought it was more a “old time’s sake” thing, and I think she thought it was something else. In high school, I think she thought she was higher status than me, and when we saw each other I was definitely higher status than her, and dating a woman much younger than me. At some point I did something similar to what I said in, “How to drop a bomb on a group conservation.”

It’s not actually very smart or socially deft to say that sort of thing, because in many cases it does nothing more than alienate listeners. But if it’s said with a cheeky grin and an apologetic shrug of the shoulders, it can be an incredible troll. It’s also mean, when we should try to be magnanimous to those who have screwed up and know it.

There was no second meet up and as far as I know she’s still single and childless. Those women have fucked up their lives, typically irredeemably, and yet feminism ensures that we cannot have an honest, society-wide conversation about this issue.


“Failing at Trying to Have an Affair” with Ashley Madison

Another day, another great Red Pill piece written by a woman. The most interesting thing about this woman’s affair is her premeditation. Most women who have affairs don’t consciously decide to do it, I think. It “just happens” when they get in the right situation. So this woman is a little different. In the intro, the writer says:

a single male friend of mine mentioned that his efforts at finding a long-term relationship were being hamstrung by the fact that an increasing number of the women he met on dating apps were already married. Some were polyamorous, some in open marriages, but they all seemed to be seeking out extramarital relationship with a kind of freedom and shamelessness that wouldn’t have been possible until recently.

Translation: don’t get married. Be the guy she cheats with, not the guy she cheats on. Women are allegedly refusing to be married “in the usual way.” As guys, we can’t control women, but we can let them get what they want. So let’s do that. After all, this storyteller says she was tired of being married and “I just wanted to do whatever I wanted.” Conventionally, marriage is about controlling your libidinous urges. Not anymore.

When women want new relationships they change: “So I went on a diet. I bought some new clothes. And then I set up a profile on Ashley Madison.” She wasn’t willing to work at being thin and pretty for her husband, but she was for the new guy.

The new guy and other guys are too timid to pull the trigger properly. They haven’t done game.

Another article, “The Joys of the Part-Time Long-Distance Relationship,” doesn’t say as much, but it’s really about how the woman in the relationship is free to get some strange dick while she’s traveling, thus rejuvenating herself or whatever.

For a man the lessons are obvious: don’t get married. Be careful about cohabitating, especially in small urban spaces. Expecting monogamy in today’s sexual climate is unreasonable, so you had better think about alternate arrangements.