I was reading some of Juggler’s book, which, like BradP’s, is very good, but as I was reading it I kept thinking about how hard things like tone and teasing are to nail. So many little things comprise “tone”… micro-expressions, micro-aspects of body language, subtle parts of the voice’s timbre… all these things matter, and should be put together effectively, for a guy to succeed. The number of romantically ineffective guys out there shows that this isn’t happening, despite the knowledge of how to make it happen being widely available. Juggler says, “I used to smile wrong. I would spot an attractive woman, make eye contact with her and then smile full-tilt. My expression jumped from dour to grinning in a split second. This came across as forced and awkward and kept me celibate for years.” I doubt it was only the smile that kept Juggler “celibate for years,” but I’m sure it contributed… people, particularly women, are highly attuned to interpersonal vibe, and highly attuned to people whose vibes are “off” somehow, as many guys’s are… we get many years of schooling in math, reading, etc., and almost no formal schooling in how to interact with other people.
Women hate weak men: I’m leading with that generalization because a friend’s girl went out with a guy who kept asking her if this was okay, if that was okay, if what he said was okay, etc. With seemingly everything he said and did, he needed direct, explicit feedback from her indicating that what he was acceptable. Women, though, want guys who know how to lead and who can read a woman and understand where she’s at regarding him, and there’s also something to be said for being a guy who does what he wants and doesn’t appear to care what other people think, in a socially calibrated way. Paying attention to the woman’s tone, affect, and body language isn’t that hard to do.
The girl said her date’s behavior was a huge turn-off to her. He’d become the pathetic male feminist, who listens to what the NYT writes and what NPR says, and thus understands nothing about what or who actual women want. He didn’t f**k that night, and he should read Red Quest instead of the hyperwoke NYT. Don’t pay attention to what people say, pay attention to what they do. Regarding women, pay attention especially to who they do: it’s not the woke male feminists.
But, there is some danger in reading the paragraph above, because the exact opposite of the “is this okay?” guy isn’t right, either. It’s not like that guy, or any guy, should ignore everything about a woman’s preferences. Being boorish is wrong, most of the time, with most women. There’s an in-between state that is optimal: women love it when guys can “read” them and get them. If she’s on a date with you, chances are she’s more into you than not. Getting to this state of being bold and decisive without being overbearing is key, and in some ways this post elaborates on The top player (seducer) is an extreme insider or an extreme outsider, but not average.
It’s a story consistent with things you’ve read here on Red Quest, although few people probably want to “constantly troll people, and get them to hate you with a passion.” Instead of trolling people and getting them to hate you, it might be better to try and be right, and to grow, but the most interesting parts concern Hanania’s introduction to THE GAME, which goes beyond the game…
While in college, I read The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. The author was Neil Strauss, a journalist who as a New York Times columnist had achieved some level of professional success but had bad luck in his dating life. He started out by doing research on the “seduction community,” a group of men that in the early days of the internet got together to figure out how to meet and attract women
THE GAME is still the introduction many of us have to the game. Evolutionary biology underlies the game…
A hot girl, “Heather,” moves in nearby: I chat with her because she’s hot (obviously), and I believe in fire & maneuver, or the practice of continually being in the game… a theme consistent with A lot of guys are pussies, but that means opportunity for the few who aren’t. People who succeed usually succeed because they are consistently doing things right, every day, and building towards their goals.
Heather seems receptive. I run into her a few times, and find out that she’s broken up with her boyfriend and moved out of his place, which is off in a boring suburb. She doesn’t know anyone… somewhere in the beginning she mentions that she finds guys easier to get along with. Mentally, I infer that, like a lot of hot girls, her real social skills are poor, and, because she is hot, she finds it easy to attract guys who want to f**k her, but who are too pussy to make a move, into her outer orbit, where those guys offer her attention but don’t have a real shot at f**king her.
Xbtusd is back, with a fresh report on what women who date women can teach us.
I have a bunch of friends who are lesbians—like, real lesbians, not the ones you see on Pornhub. It’s fascinating to hear about their sex lives and how they navigate the sexual landscape. However, things get really interesting when bisexual women date, or attempt to date, other bisexual women.
In the later seasons of MAD MEN, Don gets a hot secretary, Megan, and then up and promptly marries her. Whether this is a good or poor idea is left up to the reader, but Megan wants to be an actress, like so many hot chicks who crave attention, and Don sets her up to be a copywriter, then an actress, and, because this is TV, she succeeds: Don Draper magic works (what? it’s a TV show). Her “career” suddenly becomes important. She and Don plan on moving to LA for her acting career. Don later decides he can’t go, but that Megan should go anyway. She becomes a glamorous LA woman. When Don arrives in LA, he doesn’t fit in with her life any more; she’s outgrown him, or grown in a direction orthogonal to him. In one of their last real interactions, she sets up a threesome for him, but it’s a melancholy, goodbye threesome, not a fun, life-affirming threesome. “Enjoy it,” Megan seems to be saying, “because we’re done, and this is a parting gift.”
Don thinks he’s going to show up in LA and Megan is going to be his… but she’s not. She’s not the girl, the secretary, he first met. You can’t turn a famous actress back into a secretary just hitting the big city for the first time, not when you have made her into something impossible to achieve for most women. In programming we call those “one-way functions:” easy to compute but difficult or impossible to reverse (without them, all you crypto HODLers would be hosed). Turning a secretary into a famous actress is a one-way function: she’ll never be the same, even though Don would like her to be. He can’t swoop in and have “her” again. He’ll never be the same in her eyes, because she’s changed, and been exposed to numerous high-status men. Don can have sex with her, but she’s become an actress, and the sex is sex, not her life. Sophistication goes up, rarely down.
A chick named Jordana, of the “U Up?” podcast, admits what players and all women know: a guy who waits around and doesn’t make any moves isn’t attractive to women. A guy explicitly asking a woman to consent to sex is a turn-off. Women are creatures of indirection and uncertainty, and they live in the land of “maybe,” and they want a story for themselves and others about how whatever happened sexually “just happened.” Women don’t want to take responsibility for their sex lives. They want to get offers and say “yes” or “no” to them in the moment it’s happening, and that’s it. Jordana takes about 35 minutes of beating around the bush while talking to the guy to get to the main point: despite feminism, despite her progressive politics, despite her political beliefs… she wants the guy to make the move. She finds him asking her explicitly for sex to be a turnoff.
The strange thing isn’t that this is true… the strange thing is that she’s willing to admit it, publicly.
I’ve read too many boring, unsubtle field reports (FRs), but Brad P’s are the opposite, full of life and hilarity… someone should turn his memoir into an audiobook, and sell it, cause if the audiobook is well done, it’ll sell to thousands of guys who can’t read (video games rot their minds), but do like a good story, will buy. Brad P has many good stories, and everything in his memoir is at the intermediate and advanced stages, which is precisely the material there’s too little of. The best part is the incipient consensual non-monogamy material, which he doesn’t develop (the preconditions weren’t right at the time), but I spot them, and talk about them later on, in the best part of this essay. One example of advanced material, he writes of sleeping with a girl who was at a concert with her brother, and telling her brother to (improbably) hit on hot Brazilian chicks. Brad_P says,
I think the guy knew he had no chance with the Brazilian girls, but he was doing the typical “Fake Player Routine” that most guys will do in this situation. Admitting that he doesn’t have the skills to nail the Brazilians is not an option, so he just pretends he’s gonna go for it. I framed it like I was doing him a favor running wing man so he could nail the 2 hotties. Like his sister was in the way or something. It’s always very easy to get a guy out of your way if he’s doing the fake player routine.
I don’t think it’s common to run into a girl out with her brother like that but he did admirably, and part of being a player is perceiving what to try in unusual circumstances. I don’t think I’d have managed the brother nearly as well. It’s cool to see how a guy succeeds in situations where I think I’d probably have failed.
The best thing written about modern dating is by The Last Psychiatrist, and it’s so good he felt compelled to delete it, Don’t Settle For The Man You Want. It’s about narcissistic monster Lori Gottlieb, a woman who can’t see herself for who and what she is but is compelled to ladle advice out to everyone else. She thinks TV shows like Will & Grace and movies like Titanic are somehow real… “Nothing characterizes the dumbest generation of narcissists in the history of the world better than using throw away cinema as a template for life.” Lori can’t find a man for many reasons, one being that “She wants someone who will see her the way she wants to be seen and fulfill various other roles she has planned for him, leaving herself free to ‘grow.'” People are people, not roles, and not props in another person’s drama, however much social media tries to convince us otherwise (the best women I’ve met and dated in the last decade use social media minimally, if at all: not a coincidence). Lori is an expert in the negative, not in the positive,
A reasonable question might be, what kind of a man is this woman looking for? I defy you to answer this question. She’s two books and at least three essays into the topic, and still I have no idea. What I do know, however, is what she’s not looking for. That’s where her laser focus is pointed.
She is all “want” and no “give.” Real relationships mean give and take. Too much of either makes them impossible or dysfunctional. But, lots of people (especially women) have been trained to think like Lori: the man is an accessory to their life, not a person with whom she’ll build a new thing. Religion used to try to fight against narcissism, but it’s dead, and now it’s all about you. Advertising tells us so. And we have good psychological defense mechanisms that prevent us from realizing that we only want to take and never want to give. “Gottlieb figures that because she’s attractive and intelligent, the problem must be her standards are too high or men are threatened by her. Wrong. The problem is she is daring someone to like her.” Well that is one problem, and not the only one. But the key word “standards.” Listen to single women and you’ll hear endless talk of “standards.” Listen to married women and they’ll talk about how much they love their kids. Coincidence?
Listen to women’s dating podcasts (I don’t recommend it, but xbtusd listens to them, masochistically) and the idea of “standards” recurs over and over again. It’s right up there with “Living your truth” and letting emotions rule, and ruin, your life.
I’ve been seeing the screenshots make the rounds: a woman’s online dating profile says, “no ENM” or “no poly.” The most interesting part of those profiles isn’t whether she’s telling the truth… it’s that enough guys have figured out ENM for women to preemptively declare they’re not into it. I’m sure some of those declarations are sincere and they’re looking for their babydaddy. RPD thinks we’re still in a situation in which most women will say “no” to ENM… I think there’s some truth in that point of view, maybe a lot of truth, but it’s also true that, pitched properly, a lot of chicks will be up for it.
How? It’s not the guy being like, “Let’s go to a sex club, maybe we can fuck some new chicks.” Instead, it’s the guy whose social world is intertwined with ENM world (THE GOOD GIRL depicts this). The guy meets a new girl, she likes him, they sleep together, the guy makes risotto for her on the sex date, they date a bit, she meets his friends. His friends are cool (like your friends are cool, right?). They’re hosting parties. At the parties, a lot of the people take mdma, but they’re cool, functional people, not drug idiots. The girl will take some, or, if she doesn’t, she’ll be around people having the time of their lives. There’d be a mini-orgy in one corner. Some girl would tell your girl, let’s call her Marcia, she’s pretty… and the two girls would make out.