“‘Sneating’ is the online dating trend that feeds on chivalrous men”?

I doubt this is really true, but I post “‘Sneating’ is the online dating trend that feeds on chivalrous men” to reinforce an idea game-aware guys already know: don’t take women to restaurants before you’ve had sex. This is a newbie point that I will reiterate.

I prefer a “meet for drinks” first date, preferably at a bar that doesn’t serve food. Some guys like other venues and that’s fine. My preferred bars don’t card during the week, so they’re fine for under-21s.

If the date goes poorly, I pay for my own and leave. This has generated some outrage from chicks, but my response is, “You know how ordering drinks works, right? You order, you pay.” It’s pretty rare for this to happen, however, because most chicks are fine on dates, and I don’t care about buying one drink for a chick who is normal and pleasant to be around.

I have refused dates with chicks who only want to go to restaurants, as that reads, “Attempting free meal.” Naturally, these kinds of problems only occur in online dates, never from chicks met in person.

Women can only behave as badly as men let them behave, and a lot of men appear to let women behave very badly.

If she doesn’t drink, I like walks in a park at twilight, but I have met very few women who do not drink.

Girls who don’t understand that sex isn’t just available “on demand” for guys

I added this paragraph to the latest Ms. Slav update:

Ms. Slav also, like a lot of hot girls, doesn’t understand that sex isn’t just available “on demand” for guys. If she wants sex, she just gets it. Pretty much every straight man she’s ever met wants to have sex with her. For 98% of guys, it ain’t like that. But for guys, it’s often useful to act like it’s like that. As I do with Ms. Slav.

Ms. Slav is pretty cavalier about cancelling and rescheduling sex dates (much more so than I am). And that’s because it’s no big deal to her. As for most hot chicks.

Hot chicks like the idea of being with guys for whom it’s also not a big deal. And that’s why it can be useful, too, for guys to cultivate a non-monogamous roster of lovers. One girl falls off the rotation? Next one up.


Ms. Slav story updates: Enter new girl Peaches

In the last update I said, “I’ve been in a sex whirlwind,” and that is still true. We met this couple (pseudo-couple, I now know) off an app, went out, had a good time getting drinks, and brought them back for sex. It was good, very good for me. But as we were moving to it, the girl dropped that she is… married. Not to the guy she’s with. Interesting. I asked if he’s a low-sex-drive guy and she confirms, or claims, that he is.

I don’t get why a girl like her, we’ll call her Peaches, would get with a low-sex-drive guy. Peaches comes from a somewhat religious family, so maybe she has Christian baggage impeding her? A LOT of chicks in the scene used to be religious, and, when they got out of the religious atmosphere, they go full-tilt the opposite direction. Whatever the case, she has been on birth control since she was a teenager and hormonal birth control has not harmed her sex drive a whit. I love chicks like that.

Both the guy and Peaches are in their 20s, the girl finishing up grad school and no doubt figuring out what to do next. A side thing, a rant really, on grad school: do not go to grad school and then think you’re going to get a professor job. This is false for the vast majority of graduate students. The overwhelming majority of people realize there is no good job for them at the end… some guys (and some chicks) who are intellectually smarter than me spend 6+ years in school, then get post-doc jobs for $50,000 a year… less than I was making at 24.

For an intellectually inclined guy, it is okay, straight out of school, to do a two-year master degree, then get out. With a master degree, a guy can do some teaching if he wants and if he can make it work around his real job. Teaching can also be a powerful ecosystem tool for getting chicks, but doing graduate school and thinking, “I can get chicks this way” is an awful way to plan, but I do believe I have seen it. A guy is better off with a real job and learning game.

Modern academic life, like marriage, is a trap. “Smart” guys who are praised by their college instructors may think graduate school is a good idea. It is not and it will frequently f**k up your life… as it has for Peaches, who is almost certainly making less money than she would have with an undergraduate nursing degree. Peaches makes far less money than nurses do, and she works to advance someone else’s career.

Still has incredible tits and a nice body overall. Perfectly shaped and proportioned T & A. There are some reasonable number of women doing group sex and open relationships are freshly divorced or out of long-term relationships and ready to party. This one isn’t divorced yet, but late 20s and high sex drive + weak husband equals divorce. The husband knows about her sex life, or so she says… I have heard this one before and it isn’t always true.

I like Peaches’s face a lot because I like her as a whole package, but she’s got a pretty normal, girl-next-door face. I think she’s getting pretty intensely into me. We have great sex chemistry. I’m going to try to break her off from her other guy… I’m better than him in bed, despite being something like 15 years older, and I can see Peaches looking at me and… thinking. Thinking about what she’s going to do next. I’ve been around a lot of girls who are thinking about the branch swing. There is a lot of “money doesn’t matter in game” and “don’t be a provider” comments in the game and Red Pill community. The first one is untrue or slightly true: money isn’t very important in the very short term, but, as soon as you get into a regular thing with a chick, it starts to matter if you have none of it. Chicks prefer guys with their shit together, if possible, just like guys prefer younger-hotter, if possible.

“IF POSSIBLE.” Not always possible.

Average, game-unaware guys overestimate the importance of money and default towards presenting themselves as providers, both being mistakes. But I see game guys default too far in the other direction. In this foursome, I end up controlling a lot of the narrative and logistics because I have the money and space to pull them off.

So… does money matter? Yes and no. All else being equal, more is better. The older a guy gets, the more true this is. I’ve seen it go every which way in my life. I’ve seen chicks leave pretty well-off guys who bore the chick. She goes off with some couch-surfing guitarist. I’ve seen chicks leave cool artsy alternative guys when the chicks want someone stable and responsible. There is no magic “right” answer because the right answer varies by the chick and how long you’re going to be with her. The longer you’re with her, the more the money matters. Even for Peaches, I see her interest in me. Helps that I’ve banged her unbelievably hard and thoroughly.

A while ago, I was seeing this girl, I think I met her online (so quite a while ago). In her clothes and especially her tight wrap dresses, a good choice on her, she looked delicious. Completely fecund. Curvy in all the right places. I’ve been with girls like that, and when they’re young, they’re fantastic. Eventually got her naked and everything flopped out and down. Like unwrapping an anticipated Christmas present that turns out to be old socks.

I’ve had the opposite happen too. Peaches is the opposite. She looks good but not stunning, and most guys would probably give her a very high 6 or low 7. Sometimes you’ll see some chick you think is okay, she doesn’t wear very flattering clothes, or she does but you don’t quite know what you’re going to get, and you take it all off and everything is perky, smooth, beautifully flush, and you bump her up a couple notches. You just don’t know till you close her.

Peaches is more of the latter. Looks okay clothed and better nude. I have unusual experience in comparing chicks clothed to chicks nude, due to group sex.

I believe Peaches found this guy, Other Guy and he was sort of “the first person available.” Now she’s seeing a guy like me, a better choice in almost every way, and I think she is going to wind up with someone else. Such is the danger of non-monogamy for guys who do not measure up, as I think this guy is.

I was walking out with him one night and mentioned my plans to do the gym the next day. He was like, “That is a good idea.” I told him the truth, that I love it, and that I love straining against the iron. I didn’t love it at first, but the love grew over time, especially reading some inspirational literature from Arnold, and from other guys who live life in the Temple of Iron. I’m not one of them… I’m not huge or jacked… but I do love chasing the challenge. A guy who does non-monogamy is going to run into guys who are serious about lifting and diet. That is a danger for the average guy, who is serious about neither, and whose lack of seriousness shows.

I could be wrong. I could try to pull Peaches for one-on-one and fail. It has happened before. But the signs are there. I’ll try for next weekend. I sound awfully arrogant in this section of the post. I’m trying to be honest, though. I have met guys who are better looking and wealthier than me. This one… just isn’t one. Sorry, Other Guy. He’s also a little too PC for me, a little too SJW. Which is fine… I don’t dispute these things all that much in real life. I lead by example, not by derailing good flirting with political talk. But it, his PC-ness, makes me think a little less of him as a man, and it probably also makes normal women just a little bit drier towards him. To normal women, the PC / SJW thing is fine among low-status, non-sexual “allies,” but not so good in guys they actually consider f**king. I just don’t see those PC / SJW guys getting as much sex. PC / SJW talk is a demonstration of lower value to women, even among women who might agree intellectually.

So we’re seeing them again this week. Being with Ms. Slav has been a wild f**king ride, and it continues to be one. I don’t know how long I can do it, though. She parties harder than me… she is amazing in some ways, too much in others. I’m happy to have found her, but I also feel like she is going to be, if not the last, then one of the last girls I do the full, complete, crazy non-monogamy crazy party thing with. The desire is not there as it used to be. But I’m also happy I brought Ms. Slav in. She would have found it eventually, and she is too highly sexed to be suitable for normal relationships.

She is also less discriminating than most girls and less discriminating than me. Usually I control the whole flow from meeting to sex. Ms. Slav is happy to have a LOT of sex in one night, and she has it with people she shouldn’t, in my view. Not that the sex is wrong, but both the guy and the girl in a couple need to bring value to the table. If they do not, she should not be with them, in my view. I have very much internalized the “exchange of value” paradigm that I have written about. Ms. Slav, when she gets turned on, is not as devoted to that paradigm. Very, very unusual.

She says that she has never done online dating, which is surprising to me. It may be that she is willing to f**k whatever guy happens to be in her orbit, so she doesn’t need it.

With Ms. Slav, I think I have changed her entire life trajectory. Her inclinations were already there, but I have opened a door for her. Given her a Red Pill (though not that Red Pill).

It’s a wild ride, like I said, and it’s basically insane. I also find myself feeling oddly lonely at times, as I have not, usually, in the past. Sometimes in the middle of group sex I feel totally alone. I do not know what that means. Something in my psychology is changing.

Ms. Slav is so young that she is the object of virtually every man’s desire. It has been some time since I’ve been in the scene with a girl quite as stunning as her, and the sheer ease of being in the scene with her keeps me attached to it. Almost any girl becomes available. There is an addictive quality to having that be true. Not having to work hard for high-quality tail is extremely appealing. It’s what drives men to the heights of artistic achievement. I don’t want to overstate, as I don’t have a free buffet of 8+ chicks, as high-end actors and musicians do. But I have had and do right now have access to chicks most guys would be quite pleased to nail even after a lot of work. Ms. Slav has beauty and I have reasonable game + connections + logistics. Part of me wants to scale back, as you can tell from reading this. Part of me, however, has stumbled into this amazing situation. It is “easy mode.”

Ms. Slav also, like a lot of hot girls, doesn’t understand that sex isn’t just available “on demand” for guys. If she wants sex, she just gets it. Pretty much every straight man she’s ever met wants to have sex with her. For 98% of guys, it ain’t like that. But for guys, it’s often useful to act like it’s like that. As I do with Ms. Slav.

I think back now to opening Ms. Slav. Every time a guy opens… he doesn’t know what’s going to happen. He’s making things happen. Women very rarely make things happen. Things happen to women. Even Ms. Slav, who is more forward than most women, primarily reacts.

I’ve not been able to get Ms. Slav to ride a bike with me, or go to the gym with me.

Immigration, identity, knowledge part 2

Warning: as with “Get past your identity and look at the data,” “The stink of poly-ticks is high in this post, which has little to do with actual game, so you may want to skip it.” You’ve been warned. You should read “Ms. Slav story updates: Enter new girl Peaches” instead.

There are few fields with larger gaps between the “Twitter world” and the “knowlede world” than immigration. Most people who live in the latter don’t do Twitter as “Twitter natives” do. Among historians, anti-immigration sentiment is almost entirely absent. Why? For one thing, the data show that “Immigrants are doing a great job of becoming Americans.” Plus, historians know that the arguments against immigrants have always stayed the same and have always been wrong. Like Henry Cabot Lodge’s famous speech 1896 speech, “The Problem of Immigration”:

other races of totally different race origin, with whom the English-speaking people have never hitherto been assimilated or brought in contact, have suddenly begun to immigrate to the United States in large numbers. Russians, Hungarians, Poles, Bohemians, Italians, Greeks, and even Asiatics, whose immigration to America was almost unknown 20 years ago, have during the last 20 years poured in in steadily increasing numbers, until now they nearly equal the immigration of those races kindred by whom the United States has hitherto been built up and the American people formed.

In other words, we gotta kick out those foreigners who are different than us. Today, of course, their descendents are making the same anti-immigration arguments that are common on Twitter. Lodge also says:

It is not necessary to enter into a discussion of the economic side of the general policy of restricting immigration. In this direction the argument is unanswerable. If we have any regard for the welfare, the wages, or the standard life of American workingmen, we should take immediate steps to restrict foreign immigration. There is no danger, at present to all events, to our workingmen from the coming of skilled mechanics or trained and educated men with a settled occupation or pursuit, for immigration of this class will never seek to lower the American standard of life and wages

It is necessary; immigration improves American lives and immigrants don’t compete for the jobs Americans do. Funny stories like, “Farmers Finding Few Americans Willing To Do Jobs Immigrants Do” are common. I have friends in the restaurant biz. Try hiring native-born Americans to be dishwashers. The places in the United States with the highest immigration rates also have the strongest economies.

No one arguing against immigration is highly knowledgable about history, or the way their arguments have been used for the last one to two hundred years, and they’ve been wrong the whole time. And anti-immigrant rhetoric is rarely if ever supported by (real) research in peer-reviewed journals. For example, The welfare impact of global migration in OECD countries finds that immigration improves GDP and “recent migration flows have been beneficial for 69% of the non-migrant OECD population, and for 83% of non-migrant citizens of the 22 richest OECD countries.”

We are seeing immigrants create new jobs. Immigration does not create crime and if anything immigrants have lower crime rates, on average, than native-born persons. So why do these memes persist? It seems that humans like to sort ourselves into tribes and it’s fun to create out-groups, and immigrants make handy out groups. Normal people don’t go trolling through the literature and instead form their views on single-hit sensationalist stories and the like. Most people also don’t think about history or their own families’s histories, which, in the United States, always includes immigration somewhere (unless a person is Native American).

The United States is not an ethno-state. It is a set of ideas and ideals. It is also a machine for taking in disparate people and turning their children into Americans (some of whom will in turn adopt anti-immigrant rhetoric). We should be happy this process works and works well. We should also be attentive to the kind of evidence cited by anti-immigrant types. Yes, there are sensationalistic stories about individual bad acts. Just as there are… sensationalistic stories about individual bad acts by people born in the United States. But the anti-immigrant rhetoric is almost totally absent among historians and economists. We should be thinking about why that is. Yes, it’s possible that there’s a giant conspiracy theory. Or, more likely, knowing history makes people chill out about the supposed foreign invasion.

In good news, American support for immigration is at all-time high. I doubt this is because of a newfound love for and knowledge of history, but it is nice.

Overall, Western Civilization is a hardy weed and normal people around the world want TV, convenient food, and hot sex.

I don’t expect to change hearts and minds because almost no one thinks statistically or attempts to systematically review what data exist.

Jeremy with the burns

In college I knew a kid, Jeremy, who’d been burned pretty bad in a fire as a child. Part of his torso and upper arm were messed up, as was part of his face. His face wasn’t too f**ked up, but it was misshapen enough to be noticeable. I don’t know if he was naturally on the shorter side or if the fire stunted his growth, but he wasn’t real tall, either. Sounded a little funny, too.

Not a guy you’d expect to do well with the girls, but he made up for his physical problems with personality. He was kind but not a doormat and had an ability to make people feel good about themselves. People, including me, just liked having him around. He’s one of the best listeners I’ve ever met. I’m not sure he consciously thought to himself, “I have this fucked up body, so I have to do well in other respects,” but he might as well have thought about it consciously.

On some level, he realized that his problems with his body meant that he needed to work on his mind and social skills. He must have spent many years doing just that. I doubt he read How To Win Friends and Influence People, but I think he discovered everything in it on his own, like a hedge mathematician who rediscovers already-known theorems.

Today, Jeremy might not be very successful on Tinder, but he knew how to operate in the real world. His natural game was better than mine, even though I had considerable physical advantages over him. Did he care about taking off his shirt? Not a bit. When he’d see people staring at him, he’d call out his own obvious deficiency (“Sick burns, right?”). Instead of trying to hide his deformity, he’d call it out, neutralize it, and then move on. I think people who knew him pretty much stopped seeing the charred skin.

Did he get as many chicks as tall, well-built, gregarious guys? No. No he did not. Did he sometimes get tooled and friend-zoned by hot chicks? Absolutely. But he did pretty damn well by the standards of college and he considerably out-performed what you’d expect. He had a lot of deficiencies and weaknesses, but he worked to turn those weaknesses into strengths. He tried to make up for his physical deficits with his personality… and it worked.

Personality and social skills are probably the hardest things to teach and describe in the game toolkit. That’s probably why newly RP guys are taught to overcome their approach fears, hit the gym, quit sugar, etc. … all activities that are easy to describe and implement. “Learn how to interact with people” “read social cues,” those things are hard.

Jeremy and I lost touch over time, but he did marry a pretty girl (“out of his league” the online punters would say) and had a couple kids. Very normal life trajectory. You could say he overperformed his expectations. I’ve not met anyone quite like Jeremy, but I think of the short guys who become doctors, the guys who realize that if one form of the game doesn’t work, it’s time to play a different game. Every guy who exists today exists because, going back to the beginning of sexual selection, his ancestors made him happen. If his dad and granddad and great-granddad could make him happen, he can make it happen too. He needs to avoid giving into despair. Jeremy could easily have given into despair.

I think about Jeremy sometimes when I read guys’s complaints. Jeremy was a guy with some problems, but he also made it a priority to figure out how to overcome those problems.

I wrote earlier that for the vast majority of guys there is no easy way, there is only the hard way. Every guy is working what he’s got, to get laid. Jeremy had less to work with than many guys, but he got there. Chances are you know a Jeremy in your life, and it’s good to ask yourself what you might be able to learn from him.

Get past your identity and look at the data

The stink of poly-ticks is high in this post, which has little to do with actual game, so you may want to skip it.

Riv finds it strange that I don’t have an anti-immigrant or right-wing identity, since both seem somewhat common among RP guys, but I suspect I simply read a lot more than most guys, and that reading leads to posts like, “The best books for learning game.” It’s also led me to the literature on identity and identity formation, and there’s a good book on that subject, Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. It’s about the presidential campaign, sure, but it’s also about how the stock of anti-immigrant sentiment got turned into a flow of anti-immigrant sentiment in 2016.

Anti-immigrant sentiment has a long and weird history in the United States. It’s “weird” because the United States is an immigrant country; unless you are Native American, your ancestors moved here, and they probably moved here in a way that would be “illegal” today (mine did). Seriously, go back and look at the Know-Nothing Party, or this article. People hated the Irish then, as a group. People hated the Italians in the first half of the 20th Century. Over time, these groups became part of the background of the United States, as other identities formed.

Today the arguments are the same… the immigrants are coming to steal your jobs, change your religion, dirty your house, etc., etc. When the arguments remain exactly the same but the targets of the audience change, you should be real suspicion about the argument’s accuracy. You should build your identity around examining arguments, not around believing one of them. We should read more history and put forth fewer online memes. We should look at the data that show immigrants are great. We should encourage people to be free and expressive.

So where’s this RP, right-wing thing coming from? Probably from the bad feminist tendencies on the left. It is true that the feminist left-wing in Western politics is very bad. But I would encourage Red Pill guys to avoid thinking that, because the feminist left-wing is bad, we must therefore join or admire the right wing. We don’t and we shouldn’t. Game works to make the world a better place by helping guys gain the social skills and make the connections that wouldn’t happen otherwise. We should be thinking about how to do the same thing, in political terms.

There are also few genuinely religious people left, particularly among the young. Most of the “Young Christians” I know have had so many “slip ups” and “mistakes” that you can discount their protestations of faith. What takes up the space that religion used to occupy? Claire Lehmann is one of the most interesting people on Twitter and she says, “Having hundreds of people explaining to me on Twitter that everything from sex to nature to beauty is ‘political’ makes me realise that Western civilisation really hasn’t come up with a viable alternative to religion, yet. Until we do, politics will be the opiate of the masses.” A lot of Red Pill guys—like Blue Pill guys and people more generally—treat politics like a religion, instead of like an intellectual field in which new information should be able to change your mind.

If you find yourself lining up behind one party on all issues, you should really stop and ask yourself: do my views on these numerous and unrelated issues line up so neatly? Or am I following the herd?

Players know the danger of herd-following. Try to be yourself.

Outside of Twitter and among people who study actual immigrants and immigration, there is little doubt that immigration improves lives. Here is one paper, but there are many more. Don’t let emotional coverage of one extremely uncommon event sway you. Look at the data. Just as a player should not let any interaction with any given chick sway him, you should not let some random and unfortunate event sway you (unless maybe you are going to let an equally random and fortunate event sway you).

Why doesn’t this information make it to guys on Twitter? Partially because Twitter is limited in character count, so no one can make complex arguments on it (like this argument). Partially because all of us, including me, like to incorporate information that already agrees with our preexisting worldview. Partially because almost all of us need someone to hate. It’s not the Communists anymore, so immigrants and Chinese are conveniently distant bogeymen.

One of the best guys I’ve ever worked with was born in Pakistan, and his family brought him to the U.S. when he was small. He didn’t get his immigration situation sorted out till he got married (to a U.S. citizen). It is striking that the people who are most opposed to immigration have the least exposure to actual immigrants. People are more alike than not, and that is why game works in different countries: there are cultural variations, but the male-female dynamic remains. It is true that wealth and access to medicine changes the supply curves and elasticities of sex, but the game skillset and mindset remain.

The United States is great at taking in people and, within a generation, turning them into Americans. Europe should be trying to do the same thing. So let’s have less blood-and-soil, less xenophobia, and more historical knowledge. Immigration is good from both a moral and practical standpoint. Don’t let your right-wing identity get in the way of those basic facts. Think for yourself.

I have seen lots of ill-conceived political tweets from Red Pill guys, but the real response to those political tweets is book-length, not tweet length. Even this post is far too short. I write it because I want at least one comprehensive statement out there. Your identity as a player need not be linked with an anti-immigrant or right-wind ideology. Go your own way. Be independent.

The world is not a zero-sum place. If it were, we’d not have had the incredible progress of the last two centuries.

Let’s all try to do better.

Immigrants do a great job of becoming Americans.

Is this not enough on the topic for you? Here is a follow-up post with yet more data citations.

Who I write for and why you need to blog

Search engines are third-most-common referrer for this blog. Those readers, who stumble on here randomly, may be the most valuable, because this blog may be their route out of the matrix. I may write for them more than for anyone else. Many of the guys who find there way here through other means already understand the Red Pill and how male sexual strategy works. But do guys from search engines see the matrix? Probably not.

Those thousands of people are also the reason you, dear reader, should be writing a blog, rather than Twitter or an email newsletter. Twitter is fine, your email newsletter is fine… but if you want to get the word out, there is no substitute for search engines finding you. Blogs are exposed to search engines in ways other social media platforms are not.

Help other men leave the matrix and perceive reality. Write a blog.

“Boom! First SDL from daygame: part one”

Boom! First SDL from daygame: part one” is from 2013 and is making the rounds of player Twitter, so I want to bring it to your attention as well.

Bodi’s last post is from 2016, and I don’t know what’s happened to him since. I hope he’s found what he’s looking for.

“Untrue,” on female lust and infidelity, for players

I previously mentioned the Wednesday Martin book, Untrue: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free, and now that I have read it, I can say that, if it were framed slightly differently and written by a Red-Pill guy, it would be denounced, but since it’s written by a woman and framed as You-Go-Girl, it can be safely admired by mainstream writers

Guys are well-served by reading Untrue because most guys don’t understand women and don’t understand the dual mating strategies deployed by women. Most women want to present a facade of female chastity and loyalty to most men most of the time. Sometimes men will see cracks in this facade, as when the woman chooses an obvious “bad boy” for short-term mating, but for the most part the majority of men remain blissfully clueless. The problem for women occurs primarily when a woman like Wednesday Martin reviews the literature and intervies a bunch of chicks about what women really want in bed. The average guy is too busy with video games and has too short an attention span to learn what women want. He doesn’t read and doesn’t lift and is then surprised when his sex life isn’t very good.

Martin says “Women lust and women cheat. And it sets us aflame.” Most women don’t exactly want guys to know this, so it’s interesting to see a female writer foreground it. For a guy, it’s useful to figure out what makes women lust after him, cheat with him instead of on him. She may say “no” to you, but she is very likely not saying “no” to everyone. It took me a very long time to realize that pretty much every hot chick is having sex with somebody. So I might as well give it a shot and see if I can make him, me.

But when woman after woman in a committed relationship tells you she is unusual, sexually speaking—because she wants more sex than she’s supposed to, because she feels compelled or tempted to stray—you can’t shake the feeling that in matters of female desire, sexuality, and monogamy in particular, “unusual” is normal, and “normal” desperately needs to be redefined.

A guy who fancies monogamy needs to dwell on this passage. What women present, and what men what to believe about women, is different from what woman do and want.

“I entertained crushes on wholly inappropriate objects—men who were married, or too young for me, or too old for me.” This is why it’s worth taking the shot. You never know if you don’t ask. “Just ask” has been key to many of my own successes in life. So has the thing I mentioned, knowing that every hot chick is likely f**king some guy. But she only f**ks guys who ask.

It helps that Martin is married to a titanically rich guy, a fact she doesn’t emphasize in her book. When you don’t have to make real money, you have the time and space to write books for sport.

Martin is also a non-monogamy person. “To state the obvious, non-monogamy is exercising a pull on us because monogamy isn’t working for everyone.” A lot of guys don’t want to admit or acknowledge this. I want to, and that led to my much-hated piece, “Open or poly relationships from the superior position or inferior position.” The hate comes from guys who imagine doing open-relationships from the inferior position. To a guy in the condition of female-scarcity, non-monogamy is terrifying. To a guy who has the problem of medium- and long-term retention, this strategy is intriguing.

In 2013, some new data emerged from the GSS: women were roughly 40 percent more likely to be cheating on their husbands than they had been in 1990. Meanwhile, their husbands’ rates of infidelity hadn’t budged. The finding wasn’t unique, and it wasn’t such a new development, it turned out.

The lesson for men is simple: don’t marry. Marriage is a setup for the man to be cheated on and then to be forced at gunpoint by the state to subsidize her. Why would any man sign up for that, willingly?

On male attention from a committed man, one woman says, “He just doesn’t have a lot of credibility. You’re all he’s got. He doesn’t see you the way you want to be seen! But admiration from someone you know less well, or from a stranger—that has an impact!” When a guy marries a woman, his bargaining position weakens and hers strengthens. Don’t get married.

Like Chivers and Meana, Alicia Walker—an assistant professor of sociology at Missouri State University—does research that forces us to rethink not only female sexuality but our most cherished and basic beliefs about what women do and are, what they want and how they behave, and the role that context plays. In her extensive review of the sociological and psychological studies on female infidelity, and her own study of forty-six female users of the Ashley Madison website before its infamous hack and shutdown in 2015 (“Life is short. Have an affair,” the company’s tagline suggested), Walker explodes several of our most dearly held notions about female infidelity: that women cheat only when they are unhappy in their marriages; that unlike men, they seek emotional connection, not sexual gratification, and from affairs.

I know this is just more of the usual, but really, don’t get married.

Martin misses something important here: “polyamory practitioners I met at panels and social events for the poly community, that women, not men, were leading that movement. It tends to be women, I was repeatedly informed, who are telling their partners that they want open relationships and marriages.” Among guys doing poly, the vast majority are low-status guys who are okay sharing one woman because they figure they can’t retain women otherwise.

High-status guys doing open relationships of various kinds often eschew the term “polyamory” because of its association with ugly, deranged, new-age fat chicks. For high-status guys, it’s not necessary to use “polyamory” as a label most of the time. Plus, high-status guys don’t want to be outed as poly, which, for most guys, comes off as low status. High-status guys are better off underground, which is where they (we) stay. Smart guys also don’t formally marry non-monogamous partners.

There are other very Red Pill statements. Women are the real group killing marriage. It is funny to me, thinking about all the 33-year-old women who can’t get a guy to marry them, and they are surprised that most “eligible” men prefer the 25-year-olds they were a few years prior, who are happy to play around and not demand anything from guys apart from c**k. It is true that guys eventually hit our own “wall.” It is also true that having children is one of the most meaningful experiences a human can have. But guys hit the wall later and smart guys realize they can have kids without the legal baggage of modern marriage.

Most guys should get out of their video game world and spend more time reading books, lifting, and interacting with humans in the real world. But they won’t. Less competition for those of us who like f**king, but the video-game life cannot be good for the many guys living it.