Setting the non-monogamous frame and intention with women: XBTUSD

XBTUSD has another essay about his adventures in non-monogamy.

“Congruence” is the most important attribute when entering the world of group sex or sex parties: as mentioned in previous posts, my brand with women is honesty and direct communication. Even when I’m telling them what they don’t want to hear, (i.e. “I don’t want to be in a monogamous relationship”), they’re willing to compromise because it’s so rare to be able to trust what a man tells them what he really wants. Most men believe that if they tell women the truth, they won’t get what they want (sex). I’ve found the opposite: when women can turn off the part of their brain that is designed to suss out whether a man can be trusted, and are absolutely sure that what he says is ALWAYS what will happen, another world opens up.

Congruence comes from demonstrating through my actions that my words have value. Women can tell that when I say something I mean it, and while I might change my mind (rarely), I have values and standards and am willing to walk away when those aren’t adhered to. My ability to walk away allows women to feel safe. It’s also a function of leading with vulnerability. Early and often I communicate things that most men wouldn’t, take risks that I/they know most women would be turned off by. By making sure we are on the same page, I risk losing them. Because I’m willing to say and do things that won’t work for many women, they see that I have:

• abundance
• standards
• she can trust me

Roasted at Thanksgiving this year, and the legend of Ms. Slav

At Thanksgiving this year I got roasted… hot young Ms. Slav was the main topic of conversation… even though she wasn’t there and I’ve not seen her in a while, and none of the participants were present for her presence at Thanksgiving two years ago. Word gets around, and a jealous relative brought her up early by saying, “Whatever happened to your girlfriend Ms. Slav anyway?” From there, others took up the theme, and I think extensive snide commentary and questions about her were an attack on my current arrangement, and haters love revenge.

If you f**k with the social order of things, the social order of things will f**k with you back. Women hate seeing older guys with hot young chicks, not just because the older guy is unavailable but because seeing an older guy with a hot young chick will give other guys ideas, which is far worse than the one weird outlier guy who gets the girl every other guy wants. Guys hate seeing older guys with hot young chicks because the other guy is envious. Not all guys… some guys are past bullshit envy and will be genuinely happy for another guy getting one over on society and knobbing a tight young girl… but the majority want to be the hammer pounding the nail that sticks out.

For most guys I think Thanksgiving, yesterday, would’ve been uncomfortable… for me it was a bit annoying to see the social order fighting back, with the representatives of the social order behaving like zombies, not even realizing who or what is pulling their strings… but it is what it is, and I knew that I was pulling a social ret**rd move by bringing Ms. Slav into that part of my life. I should’ve “accidentally” put some pics of me f**king her on my phone and then “accidentally” had them on the screen, when I was supposed to be showing cute dog or apartment pics. If you want to be a player, some bad things will come from it, and it seems to me that most guys who’ve truly been players and written about it don’t emphasize the bad parts. It can be lonely, and it can be alienating, and it can cause intense envy and jealousy. Older women are jealous they’re not young and hot any more; guys are jealous that you’re going to take home a hot slut and they’re going to take home no one, or their heavy wife who doesn’t like them any more anyway. Few women love men more than sugar. Few women love men more than sloth.

Not the only guy who’s figured it out

“Mr Non-Monogamous, Part 1 – The Unexpected Date” is from an older woman’s dating journal, and it’s about a guy who’s figured out pretty much what I’ve figured out, that sex parties and sex clubs could be the next level of game… Lucy is older, verging on being a spinster, so she is very unapproving of men with lots of options, but read through the bile and you’ll see that the fellow, Charlie, has discovered via experiment that non-monogamy can work as a way to have sex with more and hotter women,

What the actual fuck is it with all these guys wanting to be in ‘Open Relationships’? Pretending to be all enlightened, all shary and sex-positive and forward-thinking, when really it’s just them wanting to stick their dicks into as many women as possible. It’s total, shameless, greedy fuckboyery, is what it is. At least in the past men had the decency to try to hide it if they wanted to bone a string of different women. Today it seems being a cheating arsehole is now a ‘lifestyle choice’.

No need to pretend enlightenment, but if you want “to stick your dick into as many women as possible” and “bone a string of different women,” then non-monogamy can be a functional frame in order to achieve those ends. Lots of women will go for it, if it’s pitched right, by a sufficiently high-status guy. Xbtusd also knows these non-mono strategies work. Guys are learning! Some of them are learning by reading Red Quest, then implementing the powerful strategies presented here.

Charlie is “completely open about his relationship status, and he’s clearly very interested in her. Which, even coming from a total man-whore, is super flattering,” so he has that advantage… although merely being into a younger and hotter woman will often not be that flattering to her because every man is into young, hot women. He has decent moves and is not a p***y (unlike so many men  today… so chicks tell me), which we can see because,

he kisses her again, harder, grabbing her hair firmly at the back of her head and leaning fully into the kiss. Assertive, dominating, determined. This is a man who knows what he wants and is used to getting it. It’s insanely sexy.

She seems to take too long to lay, IMO, but, whatever, the most notable piece of the story is the guy, who has figured out what I have figured out and what you, if you have been reading here long enough, have also figured out. It’s still surprising to me that more guys haven’t incorporated this frame and these ideas into their game. I have heard it said that more chicks are putting “no poly” or “no swingers” on their online dating profiles (always ignore the profile claims about her not being a slut or whatever), so these practices must be spreading.

How much texting should you do to get the girl? Less than you think

On Red Pill a guy has a post, “Being good at texting won’t get you laid” (the argument is what you’d expect from the title), and the comments have posts from younger guys saying things like,

Gen z girls operate with texting and establishing some kind of banter ESPECIALLY if you havent fucked her yet.

You will defo have to establish some rapport if shes 18-24ish. These girls were born and raised with social media.

Good luck cold approaching them and instantly scheduling a date over text.

Text skills are needed. Not saying be a dancing clown at all but guys here act like its illegal to build a little rapport behind the phone

Or…

I don’t know how old you are guys but I’m 19 years old, generation Z 50% or more of our communication is with text especially girls. You can’t just do what the red pill says and “text for logistics” and succeed most gen Z girls will flake on you if you do that even if you’re good looking because they have so many options you have to build comfort through text.

Having fucked a fair number of gen Z girls (one sample story, and Ms. Slav is Gen Z, and there are some others I haven’t written about…), I don’t think it’s true that, “most gen Z girls will flake on you if you do that,” because Gen Z girls are still girls… they like fun, interesting, and exciting guys… like all girls, everywhere, for all time.

If you are the guy doing things and going places, you’re inviting her along for the ride. If she misses the ride, she knows you’re going to be meeting and talking to other girls (and fucking them).

Do things. The time spent “building comfort over text” is better spent doing things, meeting girls, and talking to girls.

The whole frame of “you have to build a lot of comfort over text” is wrong.

There’s no money in it

The coronavirus world must be creating desperation because multiple guys have, independently, been asking why I don’t sell the book or hawk coaching, and I think the subtext is, they’re thinking about giving book selling or coaching a go. I’m not opposed to other guys doing either, but from what I can tell almost no one is making money from books or coaching, and in my view most guys are better off going to coding school or learning a skilled trade, depending on their underlying IQ, because those are the fields where the money is… go where the money is, not where it isn’t. If you doubt being a skilled tradesman has some money involved, call a plumber or electrician, or a general contractor, and get some bids/estimates.

Compared to a real job, I don’t think I can make real money selling books, and I’m not convinced any one is making real money at game coaching. Maybe Tom Torero and/or Krauser did at one point, or do, but Krauser in particular has written exceptional material over many years. For me, sex clubs + game is niche within niche… they’re both niche, and don’t have, from what I can see, a larger addressable market… I also think most guys don’t (really, actually) care much about getting laid. Or they don’t care enough to become effective at getting laid. If they did, their lives would be different. At any given moment, a tiny number of guys are really improving their lives and getting laid… the rest are watching TV, playing video games, on social media (with nothing to show on their social medias cause their lives are boring), etc. etc.

Me trying to make money from the book, or from a memoir (I appreciate the encouragement, don’t get me wrong), is like a young girl thinking she can make real money in pr0n. She probably can’t, though she can go through the industry wringer for a couple months, and in the process destroy her real-world reputation. Smart girls, meanwhile, are becoming nurses or teachers, where the pay and hours aren’t bad and the work’s not too hard. Maybe it makes sense for a pretty girl to do some light escorting while she’s becoming a nurse or teacher, because that’s conveniently deniable later on. She can leverage her youth and hotness with minimal reputation damage.

Smart people figure out effective things to do, dumb people don’t. I may not be a genius but I’m oriented towards effectiveness. I don’t think there’s enough money in books, courses, or coaching to make doing something like coaching, in particular, worthwhile. I’ve been reading and following aspects of pickup and game for a long time, and most of the guys I’ve seen do coaching I’d be wary of letting manage a sandwich shop, let alone them being the kind of guys I’d want to take dating or sex advice from.

There are a number of career/finance posts scattered amid the moral carnage of this blog, like Don’t end the week with nothing, and I’ll offer that advice when I see it, but the best advice is almost always hard to implement and takes many years to pay off. It’s almost always targeted to the person receiving it. Since I don’t know you, I don’t know what you most need. Coaching can rapidly improve someone’s skills, and if you want coaching, get it from Red Pill Dad.

U.S. politics is defined by the structure of the American constitution:

Political science geekery ahead… if you want actionable stuff about the game, though, we have that too… but politics is also a form of game theory, like the game itself.

The U.S. looks insane to the rest of the world because of some apparently minor political structures that over-power rural states and under-power urban ones. If you read The Federalist Papers (don’t worry, you won’t), you’ll see the concern about balancing powers among states expressed repeatedly. A quick history lesson: the American Revolutionary War (or “The war of the ungrateful colonists” depending on where you are) lasted from 1775 – 1783, and at the end of if the U.S. states created a joint and ineffective government guided by a document called the Articles of Confederation, which didn’t allow for sufficient coordination among the states; that ineffective document led to the creation of a Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the ensuing document was eventually ratified by the states in 1789.

Way back then, smaller states were worried about being bullied by larger states, and, to prevent that from happening, and to prevent the usurpation of the presidency by a tyrant, the U.S. Senate was designed to give each state two senators, irrespective of the state’s size, and the Electoral College was created to put a barrier between the possibly tyrannous will of the people and the power of the presidency.

The world had very little experience with democracy back then, and the states’s representatives were more like start-up founders than CEOs implementing a mature business process. They had no idea what the f**k they were doing and did the best they could with the limited experience they had at the time. Those features may have seemed good in the agrarian period when they were created, but since then the Electoral College has shifted from “stop tyrants if necessary” to “vote according to the vote of the people of a given state.” In modern presidential elections, that means only a handful of states matter, and the votes in those states count for far more than the votes of other states. At the same time, the ratio of the population of the smallest states and largest states has grown enormously. Montana has just a million people in it, and Idaho has just 1.7 million, while California has 40 million. Yet Idaho and Montana between them have double the Senate representation California does. A fairer, alternate Senate system might have two senators per state, and distribute those senators by state lines whenever possible, but also attempt to use a non-partisan commission to distribute senators. In a system like that, Idaho and Montana might have two senators, but California, Texas, and New York might have 3 – 4 senators (getting us closer to the “one person, one vote” ideal).

Instead, we have a system in which some rural votes are far more valuable than other rural votes. It’s also proven to be internationally true that, the more urban an area is, the more it votes towards the left. But the U.S. has a peculiar system that disproportionately empowers rural areas, and that’s had big international consequences over the last 20 years.