“What to say to girls | a structure for a daygame stack” is a good antidote to that last ramble post: nice and actionable. Very good especially for guys who are getting into the field or want a primer.
(WARNING: This post is another ramble. Skip it if you want to read anything useful.)
When you’ve done it all, what then? When you’ve smoked all the crack, eaten all the chocolate, had all the sex, made all the money, and been on all the talk shows—where do you go next? Because there it is, squatting on the far side of adulation: nothingness. “Celebrities,” the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman once said, “are in a very interesting position. They’ve already achieved great fame, success, and wealth, and they’ve realized that those things alone don’t bring happiness; that, in fact, they can be a real pain in the neck.” Or, as Russell Brand puts it, tunneling toward enlightenment in the 2015 documentary Brand: A Second Coming, “Fame and power and money is bullshit.”
Fame and power and money are not bullshit (look how he’s not giving any of them up), but there is a little something to this idea. What happens when you’ve achieved the goals? I’ve had a lot less sex than Brand and made a lot less money and been on zero talk shows, but I have had a fair amount of sex and made enough money to be not too worried about money. To the extent the game is for me about “proving to myself that I can do it,” I’ve proved it.
I ask myself, what is “the deep psychology that keeps men in the game?” Despite recent posts and stories about chicks, I feel like I’m on my way out of the game. But out of the game and into… what? I don’t know. The usual things that guys do when they get tired of nailing random chicks are things I’ve already done (career, kids). I do think there’s a reason a lot of players hit 35 – 40 and quit their game blogs. There is some diminishing marginal utility, and some sense of, “Oh, this again.” In the moment it can be intoxicating, I don’t and will never deny it, but especially afterwards I’m still myself, still doing what I do, still wondering what I wonder.
I don’t think it’s productive to chase “happiness” (what is “happiness?”). So what is the next goal? In my post-puberty life, the goal has been chasing skirt. Sometimes I chat with guys my age who are filled with longing and fantasy they think will never be fulfilled. I feel bad for them. But I also know the reality is that, the day after you fulfill your fantasy, you will still wake up and face the day and live the life.
For me writing could be the answer. I’ve thought about writing a game blog before, but I worried it would take too much focus away from work and the rest of my life (I was right about that). But game blogs are best written as they happen. I’ll probably end up devolving into stupid stuff like ranting about modern feminism. Not nearly as interesting as banging actual chicks. But I think I’m going to end up in a longer-term relationship at some point, with someone. The horror, right? I just have to figure out what that relationship will be about.
Most male-female couple relationships are about
- Bearing and raising children.
- (Often) the guy subsidizing the chick while she does #2.
Modern relationships are fucked up because game-aware guys don’t need long-term relationships for sex. They shouldn’t marry regarding number two. So what are modern relationships about? Helping someone achieve a life project or becoming a better person, probably. But most chicks are utterly incapable of doing either. No wonder most long-term relationships are dysfunctional. The things marriage used to be based on are dead or radically altered.
So what is there? Right? Most guys chase sex, money, status… the latter two just being proxies to get to the sex.
The weird thing is “getting there.” A guy gets the sex, the money (enough), the status (enough), and then what? I’m pretty much there. Not as there as Russell Brand, but much more so than the typical guy. But I’m not a Buddhist. I’m not content to just be.
I don’t know how many guys get in this state. I think most guys never nail enough chicks to think, “Okay, I’ve just nailed a bunch of chicks, now what?” It’s a self-indulgent question and problem. Self-indulgent or not, I think about it. I’ve not “done it all.” I don’t think there is such a thing. But I’ve done a lot.
The true pickup “artists” may keep going into senescence. An artist keeps making art until incapacity or the end. I don’t think pickup or railing chicks is my art, despite my penchant for making porn, sometimes called “erotic art” to chicks who need that frame. I could need a true art. A kind of weird statement for a commerce guy like me.
“Last year, I ended a two-year relationship with a man who ultimately couldn’t commit and wanted to be polyamorous.”
The article itself is titled “Dating columnist reveals how ‘Sex and the City’ ruined her life” and is as stupid as you’d expect. I only quote the sentence above because it supports “Game-aware guys being ‘poly’ or ‘open.’” I can’t know this for sure, but I’m guessing he’s a decently high-status guy who was happy to fuck the author but didn’t want to subsidize her financially. Like some high-status guys, he’s figured out that poly is an escape hatch from the “Where is this going?” conversation. She didn’t bite, but some other woman probably will.
It’s not that he “couldn’t commit.” It’s that he didn’t need or want to.
Expect to see more of this going forward. High-level guys will see poly as a means of improving retention.
Disclaimer: I’m not a texting expert and came of age in the age of the “phone call,” a now-dead part of courtship.
But every guy has to text today. I’ve thought about texting in the context of this chick, and a comment from “Factory” in this post, “You refer to ‘less is more’ with long game.. How long between pings is recommended here?”, made me write, because it’s a short question but a detailed answer.
My impression is that most guys do texting poorly. This is based primarily on listening to chicks and having chicks read me texts from guys or showing me their phones (with 100 notifications). The funniest ones are when I’ve been banging a chick while she racks up texts and Snapchats from orbiters, then reads them to me. I often suggest that I reply with a dick pic. They laugh.
(I’ve only actually sent one or two.)
I don’t have exact rules for texting because every situation is different. Internally, I let the questions, “Are we arranging to meet up? Will this lead us closer to meeting up?” guide me. If the answer is no, I don’t contact or contact at a minimum. For example, with the twenty-year-old, I knew we couldn’t meet on Saturday or Sunday, so I said nothing on those days. For all I know, she was getting gang banged by a pile of randoms, but I couldn’t prevent it by occupying her space. Texting her more would not prevent bad outcomes and likely would decrease her attraction to me. On Monday, I re-initiated contact due to logistics. When I learned mid-day Monday about more delay, I stopped texting and said nothing from about noon onward.
Tom Torero has a principle that he naturally names after himself, called the recovery text. If text #1 gets no reaction, wait some time, like 48 – 72 hours, then send a follow-up of some kind (he likes silly exaggerations or memes). If she still doesn’t reply, move on. Some chicks will just lose track of texts. I have had the same thing happen, especially when I have lots of chicks in the air, being juggled. Most guys have never had more sex on offer than they can handle, which is a chick’s default world. So the follow-up text is fine. I have seen guys say things like, “If she doesn’t reply right away, delete her number.” That is probably overkill. ButI want to move towards meeting… and if it isn’t moving towards meeting… I move on.
Any kind of contact is reinforcement. Attention is crack to chicks, and attention is the only tool modern men have. It’s a scarce resource that most men blindly fling away. Don’t do that. Don’t communicate to her, “You’ll get attention from me regardless of the amount of sex we’re having.”
Texting timing is itself pretty variable. Look at the comments in posts on Nash and Riv for guidance on text game. Look for a writer named Yohami. I’ve asked him to write a comprehensive texting guide with examples and hope he does it. Looks like I’m nowhere near as good at texting as he is.
Another question should be, “Is this advancing me towards sex?” If the answer is “No,” then don’t do it. What you don’t do often matters as much as what you do. Same with diet. I’ve been ranting about sugar forever, because in diet what you don’t eat is almost as important as what you do eat (vegetables, nuts, eggs, olive oil).
My principle is that a guy should stay somewhat mysterious. Answers should be playful and indirect most of the time. Chicks get bored easily and like a challenge (this is another texting guide). The paradox, however, is that the guy typically has to exert much more energy in the beginning of the seduction. The “beginning” may last a long time. And it’s usually good to ping something related to the conversation or the chick. Every text shouldn’t just be, “Meet me on Monday or Wednesday at 7 pm.” Too little whimsy. Some kind of callback to the conversation or context of the girl helps too.
I am NOT the best texter, that much is clear. Some of the writers on Nash and Riv’s blogs have said, when making plans with a chick, offer her two nights, with one day between each. So you’d offer her Monday at 7 or Wednesday at 7, as per my example above. That seems like a good idea to me, but I’ve typically done one night, one place, one time, under the theory that I’m “leading the chick.”
I like the two nights, though. I’ve been in the game for a while and I’m still learning.
If you have a kid, you’ll probably learn to frame choices that don’t matter. You can’t negotiate with a little kid. So instead of saying, “put your shoes on,” you say, “do you want to wear the blue socks or the red socks?” The kid will pick between those. Same principle here, with the two-night option, I suspect.
It’s a little thing, but it’s stuck with me. When you go back through the archives of the better, more analytical players, you’ll see that material. As you can also tell from this post, I am not the BEST player, but I’ve done enough to learned some things. I honestly think the average guy can improve more just by avoiding common errors than by anything else.
Did manage to see the twenty-year-old again last night. She’s been difficult to get out but great when she’s actually out. I keep thinking that she’s playing games, but when she does show up she doesn’t shit test.
I got to thinking about things I read online, when guys construct these epic stories about frame and getting around girl bullshit and girl psychology and so on. Those stories are sometimes very good. Sometimes, though, girls are just genuinely busy, or sick, or have things going on in their lives.
The twenty-year-old may be playing games, or she may have someone else she’s pursuing, or she may be busy, sick, or have an extensive social life. Or all four. But sometimes girls tell the truth and aren’t playing games, so a guy’s effort to decode what she’s “really” doing is futile, because there is no code.
That point may not be profound, but I have been guilty of over-thinking. I think about my own life. Often, I’m just doing things. The twenty-year-old has also been apparently willing to meet at times when I haven’t been able to. She doesn’t initiate meetings, but in my experience many chicks don’t or won’t.
(I’m deliberately omitting a few details that make my point make more sense.)
I feel like if I posted this little story about the twenty-year-old to forums, the participants would get on me about being “too beta” or her “not being that into me” or the other things guys on forums say. Sometimes those things are true. Sometimes, they’re not.
She’s difficult enough to get out that I’m basically giving up on her, or more realistically just pinging her when it’s extremely convenient to me. It’s somewhat unusual for me to see a chick so responsive texting but not meeting. And my texting is pretty disciplined and focused on meetings. Usually chicks either ghost or progress. Being kind of in-between is unusual for me. Most chicks are pretty keen for the second shot, so this one is weird for me.
I wrote two weeks ago that
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?”
That urge is gone now; I’ve lost momentum. I don’t even have to do texting discipline. The intense desire to be close to her is not really there. I just don’t send her much beyond “let’s get together” or “you missed out on doing this thing we talked about.”
Don’t get me wrong, being with her is still nice. But that intense feelings rush has been harmed by her behavior.
“From Baby to Bride Can ‘sugar’ relationships be a path to real love?” is ridiculous and not Red-Pill aware, but it does engage ideas from my own sex-work essay, “How to use Seeking Arrangements for fun and profit.” Most of the time (the overwhelming majority) paid sex will not lead to anything more. But:
I use variations of the online dating pics I already have. These are effective. The fatter, older, and uglier you are, the more SA is like standard hooking. The younger, fitter, and more attractive you are, the closer it can be to online dating. Again, the key word is “can,” because you still need game.
You also NEED:
- Ultra-strong frame
- High level of assertiveness.
If you lack either you will be owned. Sex workers are masters of frame and if you don’t maintain extremely strong frame, she will crush you. A guy always needs to maintain the idea that she needs him more than he needs her, and that is more true in paid situations.
Sex workers are sex workers but they’re also just chicks, and like most chicks they’re on the lookout for love.
I also don’t believe this: “Over time she settled on the price of $500 for a dinner, wine, and sex arrangement—a somewhat standard price among the sugar babies I interviewed.” $500 is too high. I think the sex workers are either lying or extremely attractive. Or there are more rich, stupid guys out there than I would have thought.
Things like this: “They agreed that he would pay for her gas to come and see him but didn’t need to pay her regular fee” have happened, more or less, to me. Whether it happens depends on the girl and the guy. Plus, for all my talk about game, interpersonal compatibility does matter. Losing chicks doesn’t bother me much, but losing the ones I really like still does, because there aren’t that many of them.
“Dan” in the Slate story is still a loser. Don’t be Dan and do extremely beta things like buy cars for “former” sex workers, or any woman. If you do that, you’re still just paying for sex. The minute Dan’s money runs out, “Sarah” is gone.
Feminists and Blue Pill people more generally are obsessed with men financially subsidizing women. That makes some sense, because traditional marriage is an arrangement in which a man subsidizes a woman who bears his children, with financial compensation there because she’s out of the labor market, often for years, due to pregnancy and childcare. But today, women spend little time out of the labor market, and what they offer (sex) can be easily found outside of marriage. So Red Pill guys learn not to marry (“Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”), but feminists and most normal women still want a man who will financially subsidize them.