Lots of swings and lots of misses (FR)

[This happened before coronavirus shut the world down, but I didn’t put up the story right away.] 

Went to a party without a date… but I went with friends who vouched for me and functioned as dates. They brought extra girls (who weren’t appealing to me, physically or intellectually/psychologically, but that happens). The girls took some drug that made them very friendly.

I knew a few girls at the party, including this one (again)… and she is now ROUGH. When I first started seeing her I’d have given her an 8… by the time I wrote about cutting her loose she was more like a low 8/high 7 and now she is like a 6… not fat, exactly, but weird rolls of stomach fat and fat legs. I saw some girl going down on her and thought “She is only 26 and looks awful.” Her life is a trainwreck too, and the fall over a short period of time is a testament to the destructive power of drugs, even “legal” drugs (of the wrong kind and taken too frequently). I feel bad for her, because all of her relationships, whether with friends, lovers, roommates, etc., have been severed, often abruptly and in a difficult way, by her behavior… and she doesn’t appear to understand why. I pity her. Drugs and other problems are ruining her life and career. I may check in and see if she’s trying to get off them.

Met a couple who didn’t know each other well and had met recently… a couple who don’t know each other well and aren’t officially dating means that the girl may be up for grabs (something that I don’t think I thought to include in the book). The girl was somewhere between a high 6 and mid 7 but I liked her vibe… she was bouncing with excitement and pleasure when I met her, and enthusiasm is infectious, like coronavirus, but less dangerous. She’s also a kinky slut, and much later I picked up her contact details, and her dates’s.

Did a ton of spanking & flogging. Few people there appeared to know what they were doing with BDSM and the fact that I’ve developed those skills seemed to set me apart. Lots of audience, which started with me spanking my friend. Didn’t seem like anyone else brought floggers.

Closest shot on goal was a girl, Alyssa, who I spanked and who LIKED pain. I spanked another girl who was super cute, with a newbie boyfriend. Great to spank but said she has high pain tolerance (she doesn’t). Then her boyfriend wanted to be spanked, for some reason, to know what it was like? Not my favorite thing to do but it seemed like a moment when I ought to just go for it, so I did, and explained to him what I was doing, what I think about, how I check in with the girl, etc. So it was like half spanking, half tutorial. Couldn’t tell if I was getting bi vibes off him… I hope not. But the main way people learn this stuff is peer to peer, so I did some education? Don’t fully know how to interpret this, so the question marks.

Alyssa… I really worked over her ass and thighs. Long warm-up. Lots of flogging, eventually leading to full-on backhand, like a tennis player’s backstroke, with a paddle. The buildup allowed her to access that part of her. Most guys rush girls too much at every level, from the first kiss to the foreplay to the f**king, when girls want guys to move like 50% slower. Not so slow as to be languid, but more deliberately than most guys go. Be assertive enough for her to know your desire but understand chicks need more time than most guys give them. Alyssa did a lot of kind of annoying topping from the bottom, but I didn’t know her and so didn’t call her out on it. Spent a long time working her over, and interleaving touching gently and some kissing. Very passionate kissing. After, I asked her for sex and she said no but that she wanted to see me later. Later, we went to another area and talked, then made out some. I moved her around some, which she seemed to like, and set her up to grind. It was erotic, feeling her hips move and the sharp intakes of breath as she got going. I got about half hard, which she could feel, then she backed off again, saying she wasn’t into sex that night.

Some more negotiations followed and Alyssa didn’t want to f**k, Although she didn’t say it, she knew exactly what I was trying to do by heating her up, and she didn’t want to do it and only wanted to make out. She negged me by saying that I seem “goal oriented.” I laughed… she’s not wrong. Didn’t have a great response, honestly, because agreeing made me seem a little slimy, and the opposite wasn’t true and claiming not to be isn’t consisten with what she’d seen of my personality and skills. She wanted to know if I was going to stay and I was just like, “I’m tired and heading home.” Maybe could have played last cock standing but I believe the gold seam was played out and produced no nuggets, just a few flakes. With Alyssa I think she knew what was up, what her strict limits were for whatever reason, and that was that. She lives out of town, so I doubt I’ll see her again. Will follow up today but I’m not optimistic. I told this story to one player who said

There’s a weird negative vibe on chicks who are a “no” to f**king. It’s different from LMR. It’s like you can feel their mindset is set to No.

I lose interest pretty quickly if she is not at least open to f**king.

Part of the annoyance is when you sense on a limbic level that the purpose of her not f**king is due to a power dynamic and not because she is not ready/in the mood. It’s a huge turnoff.

I would offer a counter take on this… Alyssa wasn’t open last night but might be in the future. She was a forebrain override girl, one who liked that I had met a lot of people, spanked a lot of chicks, and demonstrated social competence and BDSM competence. There weren’t a lot of unoccupied cute girls. Transparently losing interest too fast is a mistake… it gives bad vibes to the girl and also f**ks up future events. I have her # and will ping her. A few weeks or months from now it could happen. She’s a good person to invite to random events when I don’t have anything else going on.

It’s bad to get the reputation as the guy who chases girls and then does a 180 when they won’t f**k right away. If the player abruptly pulls away once or twice, okay, lack of chemistry but it’s an undesirable reputation. There’s always the short play, in the moment, and the longer play, over time and over reputation. The discipline to make the longer play will lead to greater success, I think.

At the end, talked to a couple, the guy less hot than the girl, and the girl just gorgeous. Huge breasts on a very small and petite frame. I would’ve loved to f**k her. They’re relatively new to the world, so I took some contact info. Unlikely to go anywhere but some seeds have been planted. She’s the sort of girl who might look “okay” in street clothes and then turn out to be stunning naked.

Fair # of mismatched partners with girls much hotter than the guys.

Kinda miss the girl from the last big party, who I saw again once and has gone silent. Beautiful sexual chemistry with her, more than with anyone since Short Dancer, probably. Such quick sexual chemistry. Am I the same for her, or am I just some guy she f**ked? I’ll ping again in another week but going anywhere with her is doubtful. Relationships end, so I hope I’m top of mind when/if hers does.

The last couple events I have attended without a direct date, and that is doing this on hard mode. Harder mode anyway. Bringing a date leads to a higher probability of success.

I mean to write less but the inner voice speaks too loudly.

Learning

* Chat with people.

* Demonstrate competence. I learned how to do BDSM from a combination of online tutorials and guides and in-person. If you’re at an event and see someone who is doing it well, watch what they do and try to imitate it. Even ask them how they learned or what they were thinking about doing (after they’re done… never interrupt. Watch but don’t interrupt.)

* Play the long game.

Dating during coronavirus: Not convinced online will work

A fun red pill story about a 41-year-old single mom doing online “dating” (really: attention seeking)… she says that she has “to really like someone to make time for him right now”…

While my kids play by themselves in their room, I swipe through Tinder and Bumble. One guy asks if I want to sit six feet away from each other and have tea. It’s a charming idea, but I have to really like someone to make time for him right now. This guy doesn’t make the cut.

But, also, she says “Men without kids are very quick to dismiss women with kids”…

I text the therapist to see if he wants to reschedule. I think he’s going to ghost me. Men without kids are very quick to dismiss women with kids. I have to work twice as hard to prove to someone that I’m half as cool as their other prospects.

The author of course doesn’t see that her having “to really like someone to make time” is the female side of guys without kids being “quick to dismiss women with kids.” She is doing to men the same exact thing she is complaining about men doing to her. She is doing Facetime “dates.” I’d call them “attention-seeking endeavors.”…

I wait for him to FaceTime. It rings. He’s there. He’s cute, and he’s made himself a turkey sandwich. Unfortunately, he’s got a high voice. It’s actually kind of squeaky. I can’t with the voice … but it’s a fun break from my day.

A high, squeaky voice, and so he’s out. She’s quick to dismiss a guy because she doesn’t like his voice. Her ex husband is her ex because “Aside from being a great provider, and a pretty good dad, he’s let me down in many ways. He can be very emotionally distant, and he’s not particularly nice to me.” “Emotionally distant.” WTF does that mean? She lives in Tribeca, a ritzy, expensive part of New York. He lives a few blocks away She probably married a rich guy with options because she liked the security of his job… but he had options… and he exercised them. “Rich” is really rich… like millions… but her money… it’s not enough… “I’m feeling lonely. It’s such a cliché, but during this scary time, it would be nice to have someone to hold me.” She’s lonely but can’t/won’t take the actions necessary to get away from loneliness.

My guess is that she’s seeking attention from men who are as lonely as she is and hornier, and that she’ll sleep with her coparent again. Tinder failed last time I tried it. I can see the appeal, while daygame is dead, of trying online and doing a direct-to-apartment date appeal to girls to try smoking out some of the horny ones. “Facetime dates” seem moronic to me. Maybe a short 10-minute Facetime call makes sense… “let’s move to Facetime and see if we like each other.” Ten minutes there. Chit-chat, a little game, ask her over, move on if she’s a no. Women know there’s a surfeit of men to sponge attention from and men are happy to provide.

I link to a lot of these sex diary stories by women cause women are so damn red pill it’s funny. Their self-awareness is ultra low. Regular readers know that chicks are random. Probably that is a key game takeaway, especially for guys getting started or coming off bad streaks. I have had 6s and even 5s act like I am a cretin when I have flirted with them… girls who affected an air of being above my station… and I have had 8s who act like they are lucky that I am willing to f**k them… the difference is often in the chicks, not in me.

If you are trying online and want to write up a field report about it, do it and send it in. I bet daygame works great when this is over. Massive party.

Priorities and what you bring to life (Katie’s story)

Women who prioritize families and long-term relationships, and who have reasonable expectations of the men they date, get married and have families and do their best to stay married. Those women are out there, but they’re not much discussed among the red pill / seduction / masculinity communities because they’re mostly invisible to us… Red Pill Dad and I have a conversation in his comments section about these issues, and I’m reminded of “Katie,” a woman I knew years ago, when I was in my early to mid 20s (she was, and still likely is, a year or two older than me). Probably a low 8 then… slender with no rack, so maybe she was a high 7 with a pretty face and pretty blonde hair, and during our friendship / interactions / flirtationship, she said she hadn’t had sex until she was in college and had had sex with 3 – 4 men by the time I met her, all in a relationship context. She was in a long-distance relationship, and I kept angling to get her into position to make my move, and she kept successfully angling me away, while keeping me in her friend orbit (we had some mutual things in common that kept us around each other). Good sexual tension between us. Eventually I did my move and she said no, hard, firm, and kind, although her long-distance relationship died of natural causes sometime after that. Tried again and she said no. Why? One, she was a year or two older than me (she didn’t cite that though it makes sense), but, most importantly, she knew I wanted to be a player, not her boyfriend.

A part of her liked me and the sexual tension, but her conscious forebrain knew what I was about and that I wasn’t going to wife her up. Katie came from a rich family and I think had excessive income expectations. We had good physical chemistry and made each other laugh… she was bright, too, and had a bubbly personality, and when a guy is potentially offered quality champagne it is hard to turn it down for whoever’s next, since the next girl might be watery beer. I bet she was/is good in bed. She had strong sexual presence yet I don’t think she was going to unleash her sexuality outside of a relationship. I telegraphed “player” and also had uncertain earning potential and she knew that, and chemistry was not going to get in the way of her larger goals.

Katie married the next guy she dated, or the one after him. She’s not on social media very much and never has been… to the extent she is, she’s depicted with her husband and family. No or little politics, no or little posturing. At that distant time when I knew her, I wasn’t properly strict on the “no friend zone” thing, so we kept in touch longer than we should have… I say “longer than we should have” because our professional life goals diverged, and our personal life goals were never aligned (I wanted to f**k a lot of girls and she wanted a secure family, that being the opposite of her family growing up). We had personalities that meshed in some ways but we didn’t have enough in common to sustain our connection, and I wanted to spend time f**king girls, not hanging out with a pretty girl I wasn’t going to f**k. She tried to hook me up with her unattractive friends… as usual, her attractive friends had boyfriends already. One of them was insultingly overweight, so maybe my estimation of her estimation of me is lower than I have been portraying.

Today, she’s been married quite a while and has three kids… and looks amazingly good for having had three kids, although she has the slender body type that handles aging really well, even if she was never a high 8 or 9. Could have had a little work done on her face. A lot of stunningly curvy women droop early, while some of the slender women who are less hot as 22 year olds grow into themselves. I’ve slept with women who are less attractive than she is, after she’s had three kids (you probably have too).

We never know what will happen, Katie’s story goes on, maybe Katie will have a change of heart and dump her husband to go do the f**king around she didn’t do early. Maybe her husband will turn her in for a younger model… life’s unpredictable and I don’t know her anymore and haven’t truly known her for a long time. It’s possible she’ll experience the deep satisfactions of seeing her family grow. It’s further possible she doesn’t have the much-discussed hypergamous disposition. If a player stopped her on the street or flirted with her in a bar, she’d probably laugh at him, or indulge him for a few minutes then say, “No thank you.” Players wouldn’t get far enough with her to make her memorable.

Stories about chicks who f**k a bunch of dudes really stand out in the mind, like stories about terrorism. Terrorism works at generating publicity because of the way the human mind works, even though you’re statistically more likely to die from excess sugar consumption, opioids, or cars. Stories about women cheating with 10 random dudes are more interesting than stories about women who thought about it but didn’t. The guys whose marriages go through a rough patch and then recover have much less need of red pill and seduction than those guys whose marriages dissolve. The guys who grow up with a good family and robust social skills have much less need than guys who don’t. Etc. “Selection bias” is real. I bet Katie’s husband doesn’t spend a lot of time online and doesn’t spend it in these Internet precincts. Why would he?

In red pill/seduction/masculinity communities, you’re disproportionately surrounded by guys who picked the wrong woman, probably without realizing what they were doing, and without the context to understand that you can’t make a hoe a housewife. You’re surrounded by guys who were cheated on, divorced, etc. Guys who grew up with single mothers, or with fathers who were weak. Guys with deficient social skills. That’s reflected in the worldview being generated by these guys. The male equivalent of the women whose sexual market value (SMV) mismatch problems have made them bitter towards men.

If your father ever taught you much about women, perhaps he told you a similar story…

More likely, however, he didn’t. Mine didn’t.

And if I had to guess, there are a lot of guys out there like me who had perfectly good fathers (in every other respect) who never really taught us about women in the way they taught us about the sea, hunting, fishing, cars, sports, etc.

The guys who are in (basically) happy marriages don’t have much to say because they’re not out hitting the streets chasing strange puss, and they’re not looking for deeper answers after seeing half their incomes diverted to their former spouses, and their former spouses’s new boyfriend. The guys who are true players probably have good social skills and gym routines and would find much of the anger and hostility online to be strange and off putting (as I suspect a lot of the red pill / seduction guys are in real life).

Katie realized correctly that I wanted to be a player, not her husband, and she reacted appropriately. I have met women who realize I want to be player but give in to their desires, and then find themselves frustrated when I am not interested in helping them pursue their reproductive life plans. Smart women mostly don’t make these mistakes, or, if they do, they have their month of fun and then jettison the fun sex guy in order to pursue the monogamy provider guy.

Most essentially, women who want monogamy find it. They don’t live in New York City, or in the big expensive party cities. They play no games, or fewer games than women who are addicted to interpersonal drama. If those women recognize a guy who does the things they want… a provider, a good earner, loyal, willing to commit… they will latch onto him and work to keep him. As they should. They will suss out who he is. Does he want to have a family sooner, or later? Does he have a good relationship with his own parents and family? Etc. They talk about their own desires to get married and have a family, since those desires can scare off players. They will bring other skills to the relationship than sex.

For a contrast, look instead at the 30-something female journalists, usually fat, who write about how there are no good men out there. Those women prioritized their careers over their families and chose to f**k fun-loving bad boys who didn’t want to commit. Then, as their SMV declines with age, they want to get out of the market, only to find out that their SMV is declining, and that they’ve practiced few of the skills that make long-term relationships work. They have lived lives that are largely the opposite of Katie’s, and they lack the self-awareness to understand what they’ve done or take responsibility for it. They have a lot to write about because they have to write something new every day or every week, and their failure to recognize how male-female sexuality works means that they can’t find the obvious principles underlying their decisions.

Let’s look at one description of modern women, “many, if not most women have become self-publishing soft core pornographers, posing with their asses in the air or wearing scantily clad bikinis or semi nude in their bedrooms making duck lips–those bored ass eyes, sexy and yet soulless.” I doubt this has ever described Katie or women like her. Plus…

women have a burden too–unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for those of us who are players), it’s become extremely reductive in modern society: be attractive (enough) and give sex. That’s basically it, and as many players have noted, this seems to be the only thing most women today are capable of providing. Maybe why I get so excited when I come home after a girl spends the night to find my bed made or my apartment tidied up.

I think Katie brought a lot more to her relationship than f**king, and I bet she selected a man who brought a lot more to the relationship than just money, or just decent sex. In this way she is like Anna, another girl who fits the “not very sexually adventurous” mold, although Katie is prettier than Anna and better than Anna overall. I’ve met plenty of women who bring little to the relationship apart from sex and I mentally tag them accordingly. They are the women who want to know why guys just want easy sex from them… and they are the kind of women who don’t want an honest answer to that question. A guy who has problems with the entire opposite sex usually has true problems within himself, and the same’s true of women. As guys interested in seduction we learn to improve ourselves. A lot of women don’t have those same self-improvement voices in their ears.

The dark side of denial and dishonesty about women

I feel a lot of ambivalence towards this skeevy story, Teen models, powerful men and private dinners: when Trump hosted Look of the Year, cause the authors get some of the story, but it’s a story about dishonesty and dishonest people, and yet the authors are dishonest too. How? The guys running this supposed teen modeling show thing are obviously just trying to get sex, but they’re putting on this dishonest veneer of modeling to lure chicks in. The “models” are dishonest: they’re trying to get money and their big break and pretending not to be basically selling sex, which is what all supposed “models” do. The authors are dishonest by pretending not to know that men and women are different, and pretending that no one understands what’s really going on, when almost everyone involved does. Everyone is lying to everyone, all the way down. The readers are pretending to be interested in justice when they’re mostly interested in prurient stories about beautiful teen girls (a topic of eternal interest to just about everyone).

The “men and women are different” thing is shunted away from most teens by our society and education system, despite its obviousness… men want more sex with more different women than women want with men, and most women want it with men around their own age (some women also like much older men, while almost none like younger men). We’re unwilling as a society and culture to say, “men and women are different” and then to teach girls how… most attractive women realize that almost all straight men want to have sex with them, and would if there was a way to do so. This power intoxicates many women and frightens others. Most learn to accept it, and rue the day it departs. The teen “models” in the story are probably not stupid and understand the dynamic on some level.

A lot of the “models” in that story… had probably absorbed the wrong story that we present… unless their parents (more likely parent) told them the truth, as most parents don’t. Not directly. The lie that “men and women are exactly the same and want the same thing” is most dangerous to younger but post-puberty teens, who often don’t really understand that they may be desirable to many men… have you ever seen or heard a fight between a girl and her parents, with the parents saying, “Don’t go out in that,” and the girl saying, “It’s fashionable and I’ll do what I want, f**k you”? The parent is really saying, “You are sending sexual signals to adult men and they may respond,” and the girl is either saying, “I’m not really doing that” (she is), or she is saying, “I want to be sending out sexual signals so I can get the attention those signals bring.” And maybe more. The parent doesn’t want his or her daughter coming back pregnant by some guy who disappears. Few parents will simply say, “You’re sending out intensely sexual signals, are you really ready for the male response you’re going to get?”

The parent-child misdirection is a lot like the misdirection in the “Teen models” story, where the guys are misdirecting what they’re doing (trying to have sex with young chicks) and the girls are misdirecting what they’re doing (trying to trade sex appeal for money) and the parents are often misdirecting what they’re doing (“this is a great economic opportunity…” the economic opportunity of trading attractive and sex for money has a name… I am not opposed to this business but let’s be real about it is, why don’t we?). The story authors hate Trump. I am not a Trump guy but I am a reality guy… and there is too little reality in this story, and Trump being a poor president and bad person is not important to dynamics in the teen models story.

The thing is… a lot of young girls are ignorant and their society and parents (often parent, no dad in the picture) have made them ignorant… I know from talking to the 18 – 22 year old models in particular… chop off a couple years and the ignorance is more profound. Parents aren’t doing their jobs. Education institutions aren’t doing their jobs. In a world of bulls**t, to speak the rare truth is a profound act.

These media hit pieces never stop to look a little bit deeper and to think a little bit more deeply and cross culturally. One book, by a woman named Judith Levine, a journalist, was totally controversial and no one wants to talk about it, least of all the writers. Age of consent varies wildly by time and place… take Rome,

The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage.

Most of you have probably not noticed that I haven’t been making a “right” or “wrong” argument in this piece, except to say that subterfuge is wrong, and we should be more honest about our intent. That’s my normative claim. “Honesty” includes the authors of that teen models story, who can’t come out and say that men and women are different and women need protection from carnal males, which is what they’re getting at. Their feminist indoctrination has them tied up… “men and women are always equal” on the one hand but also “women need special protections,” like religious Christians would say, on the other. They can try to make women the “victims,” however, because feminism also holds that all women are oppressed… and frightened lambs… who are subject to those big bad males luring them into temptation… does that remind you of anything, like Christianity?

I dunno. I read this story and think that there is a lot of blame and bad behavior to go around, and there is also a lot denial. There are also some girls from a surprisingly young age who are locked and loaded and ready for sex. I know cause I’ve met the adult versions of them, who tell me what they were like at young ages. I’m not nearly as sex-negative as most of the society. I’m aware that our current ideology and culture finds that Women don’t think that women can make adult decisions and be held accountable for those decisions. Then feminists are all like, “why aren’t women taken seriously at the upper echelons of corporations?!?”… they can’t imagine their own rhetoric and positioning has anything to do with it. Almost no one will ask what age of consent laws are really doing, or ask why it’s cool to prosecute male teens as adults for many crimes while announcing female teens are children when it comes to sex. Kinda weird when you think about it, right? But we don’t need to think about it… we just need to write that Trump is bad.

There is no real takeaway from my writing here. I think that taking these girls away from their families and their sources of strength/protection is bad. I don’t like all the subterfuge: obviously, the guys running these programs are trolling for sex and have set up a system to attempt to acquire it. I feel bad for the young chicks who genuinely don’t know what’s going on. Some of them probably really don’t because they’re young and naive. Their parents and teachers don’t level with them. It’s like giving a 15 year old boy a million dollars… how many 15 year old boys are going to be responsible with that cash? Not too many.

If you present as an adult… people will often treat you as an adult… whether you’re a woman, running a consulting company, whatever. If you present as a kid you will be treated like a kid. Presenting as an adult leads to entry, maybe premature entry, into the adult world… it is not smart for teen boys to talk s**t to adult men, although some do… it is a choice that can be made for teen girls to present as adults… but no one levels with them about making that choice. I don’t think much is going to change this dynamic. The historical and cultural forces supporting bulls**t are too strong. Feminists like having legal and cultural cudgels to hit men with. Parents want kids who are docile and not emotionally distraught because of erotic energies. Women want agency for the good things, like getting better jobs, and want to be victims for other things. It is very rare for women in public life to admit this dynamic… someone like Camille Paglia does… but she is a rare bird, one easily ignored by journalists, who have great capacity for self-delusion.

In Europe they admit that sex is a normal, healthy, and positive part of life, instead of pursuing the bizarre circumlocutions that we see from Americans and especially American journalists. It turns out that anon writers know more than most “journalists” about many subjects. Journalism and media relentlessly lay claim to difference and diversity, but the minute anyone is actually different and diverse, they’re attacked.

Recent additions to the sex club guide book

Two recent revisions to the free sex club guide book, both inspired by conversations with guys who read it.

Breeze wrote to me, “Before I read your book, I thought sex clubs to be drunken, bacchanalian parties filled with drugs. Your descriptions make them seem much more like friendly social gatherings where people have expert manners. That actually makes a lot more sense because there needs to be ‘hidden rules’ in place for this sort of ecosystem to be sustainable.” Exactly. Almost no large and public sex clubs allow drunks or people who use drugs to excess, or to the point that they violate other people’s space and desires. Sex clubs only work to the extent that women feel safe at them and to the extent that men know their dates won’t be molested. Take away the safety and the club will swiftly die, for good reason. People who violate the rules will quickly be ostracized (again, for good reason).

Think of rock climbing. Rock climbing is inherently dangerous. The people who do it successfully (and don’t die) are often very conservative about equipment, weather, and training. They make absolutely sure their safety gear is top notch and in good working order. If they see signs the weather is turning, they turn back, even if the summit is close. They train hard to consecutively reach more difficult mountains, glaciers, or rock faces, and no one smart starts with Everest, K2, or even Denali. Something similar can be said for sex parties: the people who do it successfully often plan their evenings and dates. They decide what their limits and rules are for a given night. If they want to change the rules for their next date or club, they can. They check in with their partners. If something seems off about new partners, they disengage. And the people who do sex clubs successfully look for others who share the same ethic. Drink and drugs that impair one’s ability to function properly and to respect others are not going to work with these needs. Manners and etiquette, however, help people structure interactions. Being too mannered is stultifying, but not being mannered enough is rude or confusing. People who are successful in a given situation learn to operate between those poles.

Another, not connected to the one above, occurred in a private chat and Magnum suggested it be stated explicitly.

Let me also pause to say this book throws a lot of data and ideas at newcomers. Pull back from the barrage of new ideas and remember not to overthink the experience, despite me dumping a bunch of data. the sex club and party are supposed to be fun and relaxed. If you get too in your head, too into trying to decipher every moment and motivation, the club won’t be as fun. Your girl wants to have a fun adventure with you. Think back to high school or whenever you first started dating. If you sweated every detail, every moment, every word said to the girl, you were likely too anxious to achieve flow, and the girl could sense your anxiety. Do enough planning and thinking to make the event happen without driving yourself into over-worry. The first time you try anything new, it’s not going to go perfectly. This book distills ten+ years of the game… I have noticed subtleties that won’t always be important. Harness the excitement and ride that. Don’t let fear be the mind killer. 

If you go enough, you’ll become part of the scene and community: sex clubs and sex parties will become a lot more fun when you make friends who also regulars and connect with people on a level beyond a purely sexual level. Some of my friends and acquaintances have found employees, employers, business partners, climbing buddies, gym buddies, book clubs, and all manner of other, non-sexual connections through non-monogamy. For most of us, meeting tons of strangers is stressful, and trust doesn’t occur immediately upon meeting. It takes time to build, for good reason, since a lot of hours of face time and listening are necessary to evaluate other people (I mention later in the book that players have discovered most women, most of the time, need 4 – 10 hours with a man before sex. Sex clubs can shorten that time, but a lot of swapping happens after two hours of socializing and one hour of people f**king the partner they’ve brought, getting us close to the four hours many women want prior to sex). As you develop bonds with other people, the clubs and parties will become social and sexual events, and they’ll be more enjoyable because of those bonds. Like any scene, getting into it will take some time, but ongoing, repeated interactions are more satisfying than one-offs. People who think the sex clubs are purely about sex may be surprised to find that they’re as much about socializing, if you’re doing them correctly. 

They’re both subtle ideas but I think they clarify a bit of the cultural practices you’ll find, along with popular misconceptions. Lots of people may have been turned on and titillated by that Eyes Wide Shut orgy scene, but it has very little to do with how most real orgies happen. A guy could probably try to re-create that Eyes Wide Shut scene… but he’d probably be paying the girls.

In the real world, young and hot women dictate the dating world (contrary to what shrieking feminist harpies claim), and the whole sex club scene is built around the needs and desires of women. Women need more context and comfort for sex, and sex clubs make those things happen by balancing danger/excitement with comfort/rules.

A lot of businesses are starting to shut down or scale back due to COVID-19, giving me too much time to tinker on the book, which won’t be of use to people during the outbreak, since sex clubs will be among the first venues to shutter.

Yes, the coronavirus is really dangerous and no, your view of the “media” being wrong is not relevant

There have been bad takes on Twitter about how the “media” was wrong about this thing or that thing, and therefore coronavirus isn’t dangerous. There is no “media,” but there are individual writers and thinkers whose work should be attended to. Some publications also do comprehensive fact checking and some don’t. The good publications do really well at fact-checking real things, like the number of cases or speed of spread. They may have political opinions you don’t like or agree with but are very good on basic facts (even if they sometimes ignore other facts).

In terms of being “right” or “wrong” in politics, and the consequences of being right or wrong, consider past political behavior in a crisis… both Bush and Obama, whatever else you think of either, reacted to the 2008 crisis with TARP, the stimulus bill, and bank prop-ups, because economists in both administrations had learned the lessons of 1929. Obama was roundly and wrongly condemned for this from the right and from the extreme left, but keeping banks upright is essential to a modern economy. 90 years ago we didn’t realize it. Firefighting: The Financial Crisis and Its Lessons is a good take, although it requires detail, which means 99% of the population lacks the sustained attention necessary to understand it.

Most people vote as a means of tribal identity. Less than half the (voting part of the) country identifies as rightish or Republican, so they foolishly voted for an incompetent who doesn’t have the acuity to run a pizza shop. “Basic competence” is why the White House’s occupant is such a potential disaster. He’s like holding a stick of lit dynamite with a fuse of unknown length. We are now seeing the blowup.

We are now seeing the blowup in a situation that demands high IQ, managerial skills, attention to reality, and fast reflexes, none of which the current White House occupant has. A competent president would have lasered in on removing FDA barriers to COVID-19 testing a month ago. He didn’t. With exponential processes, things can feel normal until it’s too late to prepare. Seriously, read that.

Yes, Trump is that bad, and many of the guys writing about game and women are unfortunately enamored of the stupidest parts of the right and the Republican party. Poor decisions from voters to elect Trump in the first place, and then to elect incompetent Republican Senators who have protected him, are likely going to lead to a lot of deaths.

Yes, the media’s hatred of men and being white is bad and annoying, but dying or being debilitated from a virus in a pandemic is worse. Much much worse. These two things can both be true and one can be a lot worse than the other. Right-wing voters are too tribal to have voted according to Trump’s fundamental incompetence. A lot of people may have to die because the real world exists (if we are lucky, states and local governments will step in). It’s not all Twitter and Fox News (much worse than most publications and not even remotely interested in facts).

This is not a matter of “bias.” This is a matter of real resources, which the country has not prepared, in part because of ineptness in the White House. The inept response is awful now and will likely be worse later. No, I am not a lefty. Think past right versus left. Avoid dogmas. This is “reality” vs “fantasy.” Develop a strong reality bias.

Most people’s ability to separate out what they want to be true and real from what is true and real is poor, and that is why we have the White House occupant we have.

If the other side had won the 2016 election, and the other side’s response to coronavirus had been this incompetent, the right would be screeching about that incompetence, for good reason. We are facing a real crisis with real stakes with someone who lacks the ability to understand what is happening at the helm. He should have been removed by the Senate already and every day the Senate delays removal we inch closer to the brink.

Can you view things correctly, regardless of who’s saying them? Some can, many can’t.

Dating sex positive and non-monogamous girls… and a ramble about the game

A player asked about the last FR… I told him that some of the women at that sex party were quite hot, but they were also looking for guys who are already good at what the women want… like, if you’re a guy and you’re not willing to do some mfm, they’re just not going to be super interested, and some women who’ve had a taste of what’s possible will not date vanilla guys anymore. Instead they want to date guys who can manage jealousy and who have underlying sex skills… those guys are not readily available commodities… so when hot women find guys who can make these peak experiences happen, some of them are happy to have found their male unicorn. Lots of guys will pretend to be non-vanilla and non-monogamous in order to get the lay, but few of them truly are, so women get tired of trying to separate out the pretenders from the real thing.

The player said

Can you just clarify this? These chicks wouldn’t date a vanilla guy just because he has not had experience/not into MFM? Really? I’m trying to gauge the value of MFM in my mind.

The hot women I’m thinking about would likely be open to dating a vanilla guy who is genuinely up for MFM, but a lot of vanilla guys will be excited for FMF (obviously), yet they’ll balk at the other way around. They don’t reciprocate, and reciprocation is a key aspect of human social life and bonding. A lot of guys are also sexually open minded in theory, but when the time for practice arrives, they change their mind and want exclusivity, etc. One woman I know searched for a primary partner and dated like 4 – 6 guys from the internet (not simultaneously), all of whom said they were cool with non-monogamy… then told her they wanted an exclusive relationship. She is a poly s**t so she dumped each. A lot of kinky/non-mono women find vanilla guys useless, cause it’s easy to waste weeks/months on them, just to discover that in reality, no, the guy doesn’t really want to be non-monogamous, although he’s fine with some fmf threesomes… just like every guy straight guy alive.

On the other side of the equation, some monogamously-inclined girls don’t want mfm. Why? If a woman really wants a conventional monogamous boyfriend who is going to be into her, mfm sets that goal back, and most men who will go for mfm will also seek fmf… a small number of guys are into hotwifing/cuckolding or whatever it may be called, but those defective guys are pretty rare.

What to learn from famous guys, acting over the long term

I’m interested in what we can learn from famous guys, the actors and athletes and musicians, and how they structure their romantic lives, and you can see that interest in rambles like “When you’ve done it all, what then?” Those famous guys can get any and every kind of woman they want, and a lot of them spend some years laying out a lot of women. But… most of them wind up with long-term girlfriends and most of them even marry (then a lot of them divorce, like everyone else). Adam Sandler, to pick one example, could still be in the game as much as he wants… instead, “Movies shoot in summer, so he can bring his kids to set. During the year, the workday is arranged to allow him to drop them off at school and pick them up.” This isn’t a guy trying to max out his body count. Lots of other famous guys, guys who could have whoever, also don’t seem to be trying to max their body counts. What’s that mean?

Being in the game is many things, and one of those things is “amplifying normal ups and downs.” The highs can be very high but the lows very low, and extreme promiscuity comes with costs. I think about the highs because, as with drugs, loving the “high” too much can be dangerous, particularly for older guys. Building a peer group is important for almost every person, and guys into the game seem to also be alienated loners, often struggling with our own pasts, presents, and personalities. It’s also harder to build a real-world peer group when you’re constantly chasing chicks, in a way that few guys do, and that few guys can relate to.

There is something to the idea that “Age is just a state of mind.” To the idea, “You’re only as old as the woman you feel.” But there is also something to the idea that, over time, doors do close. Lives change. People change. Peer groups change. Paul Janka hits this on the Torero podcast, and he says he got out of the game for a bunch of reasons, including that his friends were hanging up their pickup spurs and getting married and having kids.

I don’t really have a place I’m going with this. I’m thinking aloud. Some people, guys and women, like the sex club thing as a couple because that allows the intimacy and partnership of a relationship with the novelty and ecstacy of the chase and new partners. The most successful couples in that world still put each other first. I bet a lot of the Hollywood guys, the musician guys, who get into long-term things have a little something on the side now and then, but they put their primary person first. To do otherwise is to destroy the integrity of the primary relationship. The famous guys have problems with loneliness and meaning, like the rest of us. Maybe worse, in some ways, because someone always wants something from them (women know what straight guys are after, too). If I stop hustling, very soon, no one but my real friends and my family will want anything from me. Parts of the human conditions are real dark, and they are contingent on performance. We can try to understand it, but we cannot overcome it.

Think about girls, too. There is a lot of red pill talk about hypergamy and girls behaving badly, and there’s truth to that. However, in addition to the truth, there’s also some selection bias. I don’t want to repeat the whole essay at the link, but… “Guys who have successful relationships with functional women don’t seem very likely to end up writing for the Red Pill. Guys who get cheated on, dumped, etc. seem much more likely to end up reading the Red Pill, looking for answers, and venting on it.” “The women who react to street pickup are probably not a random sample of women, so drawing conclusions about all women can be dangerous.” Same with the women you meet online. I know some women, some of them very hot, who have never done online. I also know some women who did online for a very short period because they wanted a long-term relationship and when they found a guy who they like and who is reasonably within reasonable parameters, they stuck with him. Those are the kinds of women who are repelled by player vibes.

Game, at its best, allows human connections to flourish, “I will confess… the two ‘bottomed out’ periods of my life coincided with me backing off of game. I’m not certain the lack of game CAUSED those periods, I don’t think that was true… but game is an organizational force in my life, and I realize the utility there.” At its worst, it is guys trying to extract value, and extracting it from women who know what’s going on and are maybe attracted to that kind of thing. Trying to maintain that positive mindset can be one of the toughest things in game… and in life, in the face of adversity, rejection, etc. It’s something I struggle with. One way to contextualize struggle is to look at what others are doing and how they are dealing with the same conditions. Rich famous guys are different in many ways from normal guys, but not totally different, and we should think about what they choose to do.

All dogmas are to be avoided.

Where spinsters come from, “I would love to get married at some point”

In “where spinsters come from” series, this woman, who is already 32, gets a good place

Being single the past couple of years has made it easy for me to make decisions like picking up and moving to Europe. I enjoy the thrill of sleeping with someone new and I think more is more when it comes to sexual partners. That said, I would love to get married at some point in the next few years. But right now, I at least would like to form some genuine connections.

Packing up and moving to a foreign country, likely temporarily, is an awful place to develop the social structure and social life that encourages marriage. F**king randoms is great, and I’ve done it a lot, but it’s also terrible prep for marriage, particularly for women. This woman has already passed her peak fertility level and thinks that some guy is going to come along to wife her up the day she’s finally ready. Who knows, maybe some guy will (there are plenty of guys who will do dumb sh*t), but reading this is like watching a guy claim he’s serious about getting in the game while he stuffs Doritos in his mouth and picks up the gaming system controller. Actions and stated beliefs/desires are very different.

It’s kinda sad seeing delusion in action but it’s also informative. She sounds like a right good time though. Guys who are interested in monogamy also have to remember that they’re pushing against every female-centric clickbait website in the world that’s pushing a “you go girl” and “f**k around” narrative.

 

 

“Winners continue to win, and winning builds structural advantages”

That’s what a guy in finance was talking about on a podcast… I didn’t keep track of the original location, sorry, but the finance guy’s gist was something like, “In America, we have these narratives that we’re given from childhood. People are still religious, but we don’t really take our popular stories from holy texts anymore. We take them from Disney movies. The most common narrative when you’re a child in the United States is the little guy coming from behind. But when you get into investing, or any highly competitive arena, you realize that winners continue to win, and winning builds structural advantages. You’re disadvantaged if you’re small. This is not a romanticized story.”

The applicability to game is obvious… to come from behind takes a supernormal amount of work, and it takes someone who wants to buck trends, be different, and concentrate all of his resources on winning.

Most people can only win in one field. I have been talking to a guy in the game who also wants to improve his financial position (a good goal). But it is going to be very hard for him to do the game in depth and to dramatically change his financial life. The guys who he sees winning, financially speaking, have usually been laying the groundwork for victory for many years, and doing a lot of work to get to where they are. “Good, high-paying jobs” is a highly competitive arena where it is hard to come from behind, because other people have a variety of structural advantages built over years.

If you listen to rich, successful guys talk, a lot of them credit their wives for a lot of their success. Red Pill fanatics will reply to say those women are all cheating, they’re all waiting to divorce the successful man and take his money, they’re conniving, etc…. and while those things happen, I don’t think they’re the most common path for a successful, older rich guy. More commonly, a good woman will dramatically increase a man’s ability to succeed financially because she’ll believe in him, she’ll take care of the house, she’ll deal with the kid stuff. When he’s feeling down (everyone feels down sometimes), she’ll support him (there is a difference between sometimes feeling down and making your wife or girlfriend an emotional tampon). She increases a man’s ability to focus on other things, like his business and developing his skills. And of course for most guys, hunting for sex consumes lots of time, energy, and focus.

(Did you see the important word “good” in the paragraph… “a good woman…” a good woman enhances a man’s ability to achieve other goals, while a bad one is a burden.)

I am not suddenly pro-marriage, because marriage is a high-risk bet. If it blows up, the costs are sky-high. If it succeeds, however, the financial, time, and concentration benefits can also be very high. Some high-risk bets are good… this one seems net bad to me… and if a good woman enables a man to concentrate, talk to any divorced guy about what the divorce legal process does to his concentration.

Being good with chicks also has structural advantages. I know undersexed rich guys who can’t get laid, for all kinds of reasons… they are smart, but they have terrible bodies. They have oriented their minds towards technical fields, so that they can’t tease women, lead women, or connect with women. Women’s psychology baffles them and seems like a world of smoke, mirrors, vapor, and hidden trap doors (which it is… players just learn to navigate and get night-vision goggles). Guys who really learn the female mind can do very well at f**king chicks.

Obviously, a guy with a lot of money can use that to buy personal training, buy personality coaching, or buy chicks directly, but that last one has a bunch of downsides and the first two still take a lot of time and energy, and no guy who is 37 is going to get his 20s back. He may “make up” for them in some way, but time goes on direction. Rich guys may not have the structural advantages the captain of the wrestling team had… or whatever example you want to use. Almost all guys who nail a lot of hot chicks have some kind of structural advantage. Could be a job that introduces them to a lot of hot chicks. Could be good looks. Could be exceptional charisma. Could be sex clubs (or, as I think of them, an undervalued market opportunity that most guys don’t understand… investing in undervalued assets is how all those hedge fund guys got rich).

In popular narratives, the ugly duckling gets the girl in the end, who chooses him over the oafish jock. In reality, the oafish jock usually wins the pretty girl. “You’re disadvantaged if you’re small.” And in popular narratives, the ugly duckling often isn’t that ugly. We love to see the little guy come from behind. In reality, the solution is often literally to get big, by hitting the gym. Chicks respond to hot guys, more than they do to pudgy guys. Guys are more driven by pure body than chicks are, but chicks are too. A lot of guys absorb lessons from pop culture that are actively wrong.

Nailing hot chicks is a highly competitive arena with lots of subtleties, for most guys. There are naturals, yes. The guys who do it well (for a time, in most cases) often devote themselves fully to it. I have spent time (more time than I should have) explaining many of those subtleties in one area.