Texting guide

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.

One more time

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?”

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.

“Female Intrasexual Competition: From Demons to Better Angels”

Female Intrasexual Competition: From Demons to Better Angels” shows the striving and conniving most women don’t want to publicize but will admit in private. I’ve heard numerous stories just like these, but usually after a drink or two, or during that beautiful vulnerable open period after sex, or from women I know well.

Guys who don’t know and talk to a lot of women don’t really internalize the intensity of female rivalry.

I don’t believe self-reported data about sex

Data from this thread about sexuality is interesting but also looks cherry-picked to me. It seems that about 13% of people claim to have had one sex partner in their entire life; about 2.5% claim to have had zero and the majority are under five partners. I find this hard to believe: it’s true that Americans are more obese than ever, but I don’t believe we’re that obese.

According to this data, the divorce rate has been falling for a while. But we don’t see the rate on people who have never married, especially at older ages, which also seems to rising, as does childlessness.

We are superficially moralistic about cheating and infidelity. But, realistically, it’s also true that lots of people cheat and never admit it. Especially not on surveys. And I don’t see a good way of uncovering that dark number. Almost no one admits to cheating.

It does seem that (some) Millennials are having less sex, but it’s not clear how much of that is skewed by sexless guys and how much of it is a product of living at home too long. Or how much of it is whether oral sex “counts.”

Maybe I’m just living in my own bubble. Maybe hot chicks get better offers, so they’re willing to have more sex. It’s true that the majority of women are sexually invisible to me, typically due to age or weight. I have heard women lament, typically due to weight, that no guys even approach them. I do think it’s possible that a lot of people like stuffing their faces and watching TV more than sex. A weird choice to me.

What people SAY and what people DO are so so different. We see it all the time in everyday life. Survey data is better than no data, but only a little bit. The old rule is to divide whatever number a man tells you by three and multiply the number a woman tells you by three.

This is more data, showing the number of actual “incels” seems to be small. I’m sure it sucks to be one, and any “incel” can be helped by getting off his ass, quitting video games, and quitting sugar.