“Last year, I ended a two-year relationship with a man who ultimately couldn’t commit and wanted to be polyamorous.”

Last year, I ended a two-year relationship with a man who ultimately couldn’t commit and wanted to be polyamorous.”

The article itself is titled “Dating columnist reveals how ‘Sex and the City’ ruined her life” and is as stupid as you’d expect. I only quote the sentence above because it supports “Game-aware guys being ‘poly’ or ‘open.’” I can’t know this for sure, but I’m guessing he’s a decently high-status guy who was happy to fuck the author but didn’t want to subsidize her financially. Like some high-status guys, he’s figured out that poly is an escape hatch from the “Where is this going?” conversation. She didn’t bite, but some other woman probably will.

It’s not that he “couldn’t commit.” It’s that he didn’t need or want to.

Expect to see more of this going forward. High-level guys will see poly as a means of improving retention.


Texting guide

Disclaimer: I’m not a texting expert and came of age in the age of the “phone call,” a now-dead part of courtship.

But every guy has to text today. I’ve thought about texting in the context of this chick, and a comment from “Factory” in this post, “You refer to ‘less is more’ with long game.. How long between pings is recommended here?”, made me write, because it’s a short question but a detailed answer.

My impression is that most guys do texting poorly. This is based primarily on listening to chicks and having chicks read me texts from guys or showing me their phones (with 100 notifications). The funniest ones are when I’ve been banging a chick while she racks up texts and Snapchats from orbiters, then reads them to me. I often suggest that I reply with a dick pic. They laugh.

(I’ve only actually sent one or two.)

I don’t have exact rules for texting because every situation is different. Internally, I let the questions, “Are we arranging to meet up? Will this lead us closer to meeting up?” guide me. If the answer is no, I don’t contact or contact at a minimum. For example, with the twenty-year-old, I knew we couldn’t meet on Saturday or Sunday, so I said nothing on those days. For all I know, she was getting gang banged by a pile of randoms, but I couldn’t prevent it by occupying her space. Texting her more would not prevent bad outcomes and likely would decrease her attraction to me. On Monday, I re-initiated contact due to logistics. When I learned mid-day Monday about more delay, I stopped texting and said nothing from about noon onward.

Any kind of contact is reinforcement. Attention is crack to chicks, and attention is the only tool modern men have. It’s a scarce resource that most men blindly fling away. Don’t do that. Don’t communicate to her, “You’ll get attention from me regardless of the amount of sex we’re having.”

Texting timing is itself pretty variable. Look at the comments in posts on Nash and Riv for guidance on text game. Look for a writer named Yohami. I’ve asked him to write a comprehensive texting guide with examples and hope he does it. Looks like I’m nowhere near as good at texting as he is.

Another question should be, “Is this advancing me towards sex?” If the answer is “No,” then don’t do it. What you don’t do often matters as much as what you do. Same with diet. I’ve been ranting about sugar forever, because in diet what you don’t eat is almost as important as what you do eat (vegetables, nuts, eggs, olive oil).

My principle is that a guy should stay somewhat mysterious. Answers should be playful and indirect most of the time. Chicks get bored easily and like a challenge (this is another texting guide). The paradox, however, is that the guy typically has to exert much more energy in the beginning of the seduction. The “beginning” may last a long time. And it’s usually good to ping something related to the conversation or the chick. Every text shouldn’t just be, “Meet me on Monday or Wednesday at 7 pm.” Too little whimsy. Some kind of callback to the conversation or context of the girl helps too.

I am NOT the best texter, that much is clear. Some of the writers on Nash and Riv’s blogs have said, when making plans with a chick, offer her two nights, with one day between each. So you’d offer her Monday at 7 or Wednesday at 7, as per my example above. That seems like a good idea to me, but I’ve typically done one night, one place, one time, under the theory that I’m “leading the chick.”

I like the two nights, though. I’ve been in the game for a while and I’m still learning.

If you have a kid, you’ll probably learn to frame choices that don’t matter. You can’t negotiate with a little kid. So instead of saying, “put your shoes on,” you say, “do you want to wear the blue socks or the red socks?” The kid will pick between those. Same principle here, with the two-night option, I suspect.

It’s a little thing, but it’s stuck with me. When you go back through the archives of the better, more analytical players, you’ll see that material. As you can also tell from this post, I am not the BEST player, but I’ve done enough to learned some things. I honestly think the average guy can improve more just by avoiding common errors than by anything else.

Open or poly relationships from the superior position or inferior position

If you read The Red Pill, you’ve probably seen guys slagging open and poly relationships because those guys are thinking of themselves as the dude in the relationship with a chick who is going to get laid by a new guy. Or a bunch of new guys. Whatever. While she’s doing that, he doesn’t have the game to go sleep with new chicks. He might be subsidizing her financially. The comments from those guys slag open relationships as a way for chicks to do hypergamy. I’ve seen many of these and responded to some, and now I realize why the conversations go as they do.

I, on the other hand, look at open and poly relationships as a possible game tool. See that post for my reasoning and experience. I also advocate that men don’t marry or cohabitate. Marriage is a system for transferring resources from a man to a woman for the sake of raising children, but that system broke down a long time ago for reasons too long to get into here: Real World Divorce explains in detail why men should not marry today, under almost any circumstance. A legally married guy should never do open or poly.

(Before someone points this out, I’ll acknowledge that yes, in some ways “open relationships” and “poly relationships” are different, but for players the distinction is irrelevant.)

For a game-aware guy in the superior position, however, “open” relationships are a handy contrivance to increase sexual availability and keep FWBs / lovers going over the longer term. As every guy who has ever lost chicks to the “Where is this going?” conversation knows, most chicks think they want marriage. Some genuinely do but many don’t; they’ve just been told by society since they were little girls that marriage is the right thing to do. The “Where is this going?” conversation kills most uncommitted relationships and even many non-cohabitating relationships. Sleeping with a chick for a couple months, until she’s into you, then taking her to sex clubs or similar venues, and building up the idea of consensual non-monogamy in her mind, can retain her, increase novelty, and make it somewhat easier to sleep with new chicks.

Open or poly is a way to keep her on the rotation while forestalling her dropping out. In my view it is still better to catch and release older women who want families, but the open or poly frame can help make a woman’s forebrain align enough with her hindbrain to make her stick around. A guy must make sure a typical woman’s primeval hindbrain and recent, reasoning forebrain agree with each other, if she’s going to be more than a one-night stand or short fling. The poly system is a way of making her intellectual framework agree with what she is doing sexually. Without that framework, most chicks will eventually dump a guy who won’t marry or commit. Almost no one thinks for themselves or questions the society they live in.

At the same time, chicks have lots of naughty fantasies they generally won’t share with other people, including, frequently, group sex fantasies. Nancy Friday’s books, the success of 50 Shades of Grey, and the entire romance novel industry show this. Many chicks will act on those fantasies in a given space (spring break, Vegas, bachelorette parties, while drinking) but then deny them to themselves and to others later. Poly is an alternate system that can allow a chick to tell herself that what she’s doing is okay and even desirable. A guy who is discreet and non-judgmental can often draw these feelings out of her.

Bi women also make great wingmen.

This situation reminds me of the Krauser post, Reveal vs Restructure,

So why the divergence in opinion? I think it comes down to which side of this divide you fall on. Is your Journey a process of:

* Uncovering a pre-existing SMV and personality that is attractive to women, or;
* Ridding yourself of a Pussy Repellent virus and then building an attractive man from scratch.

The [trainee Chads] are normal men with normal social skills and outlook and inhabit bodies that are reasonably attractive to a wide range of women. Some will require more work than others but all are building on a strong base. It’s like cooking a meal starting with fresh organic high quality ingredients. These men already have decent value, they just lack a Value Delivery Mechanism. Teaching them game is like having an out-of-shape teenage Usain Bolt show up on his first day of Learn To Sprint school. They have to put in the work but the rewards are almost immediate. There’s never any real struggle.

In contrast, [frustrated chumps] are a broken mess and the older they are upon discovering game the more traumatic the transformation. Whereas tChad just needs a daygame model and a shove in the back to start opening, fChump needs a complete overhaul of his entire personality and lifestyle.

If you read about game online, this distinction and the endless debates it engenders will be apparent. Guys starting from a very low point have a way different experience than guys starting from a normal point.

I see a similar distinction among the few who look at open relationships from a game-aware perspective, like myself, as a tool for retention and novelty, versus the more common outlook who see open relationships from the perspective of a guy whose wife, girlfriend, or partner wants to sleep around on him. He knows he likely doesn’t have the skill to seduce and sleep with new women, while women interested in casual or semi-casual sex have no problem finding it.

The 80/20 principle and why “there are no good men out there”

On Reddit, a guy wrote a post, “The Pareto Principle, women’s tendency to complain that there are ‘no good men out there,’ and it’s application to YOUR confidence levels.” It’s pretty good, unlike many posts, and men should know that 20% of the guys likely slam 80% of the women. For most guys, it’s possible (albeit through work) to hit that top 20%. The guy who has more options also gets more options through the winners effect (winning a little begets more winning).

In addition, most women want to look up to a guy—to find a guy they perceive to have higher perceived SMV than their own. That’s why putting a chick on a pedestal is so defeating and gross. But, for the mentally stable 8+ chicks, there are very few guys who she perceives as higher value than herself. So yeah, she may have 99 options, but she’s pining for the one guy that four other chicks pine for as well. That guy probably has enough options that he’s a little whatever about her, which makes her like him even more, leading to a feedback loop.

Women do perceive themselves as having very few options because they want to date and marry “up.” As a woman nears the top of the beauty and mental sanity pool, that becomes very hard. And the average man is attracted to the average woman, while the average woman is not attracted to the average man (Mate by Tucker Max and Geoffrey Miller discusses this, and so does a hidden RP book called Dataclysm). By default, except for the very top guys, most women are not going to be attracted to a given guy. That is why guys must get used to rejection, early in the process (later in the process, it’s more common for a guy to reject the chick).

This 80/20 rule is why every guy doing online dating needs to learn basic photography. If he does that, he sets himself far apart. I’ve looked through chicks’s online dating matches with them. Chicks are right that probably 90% of their matches are hideous. Hot chicks have it worse. If you have not tried this, I recommend you do with your next plate or FWB or lover. Most chicks have online dating profiles, though they don’t want to admit it.

Guys further don’t understand that for women, perception is reality. For guys, reality is reality. Guys are more like engineers and chicks and more like marketers. To a woman, the desirability of a man is probably based less on his underlying traits than on how much other chicks like him.

To some women, I’ve been in the top one percent of guys; to others, I’ve been, if not in the bottom ten percent, then sexually invisible or repulsive. In a man’s life, he has the opportunity to play many roles. If he works hard and learns about human sexuality, he may have the opportunity to get in that top 20 percent (given how little most guys try, this is easier than it may seem). It may be very hard for him, but overcoming difficulty is how we grow. School presents too few difficulties, and difficulties of the wrong sort, to let us grow.

The other problem chicks face is that “good” men by definition already have girlfriends. If they don’t have girlfriends, they must not be that good. I’ve been somewhat successful over time because I usually have a backup reserve of possible girlfriends; when one leaves, I immediately hit up any and all plausible replacements for dates. I’m going to try going on a date with one of Bike Girl’s friends this weekend. It may not work. But she’s been flirting with me for a while, so it might work.

I also made a move on a 22-year-old I know, loosely, through work, and I think she was attracted to me because she knew about my sex-positive disposition and interest in sex parties and non-monogamy (done well, this is powerful pre-selection). Probably one of the hottest women I’ve ever seen, although with a weird, introverted personality that works for me. Very introverted, but I failed: she has a girlfriend and the night we met, we first met in a coffee shop, and I thought that was going to be it. But it was “on,” so I moved her to a bar to get drinks, though I had kids at home and thus had no good logistics in place. She had a (probably true) time constraint as well. I’ll write a longer post about her at some point, but she’s bisexual and mostly dates women. For a guy who wants to get laid, “bisexual” is one of the best things he can hear, because it codes as “likes sex a lot” and “easier to get in bed.” We talked yesterday and she said she wants to ice us. Too bad, because I’ve got a horrible crush on her. It’s been a really long time since I’ve had a real, honest-to-God crush. In retrospect I shouldn’t have moved on her when I did, but I thought the follow-up would be a layup. Nope.

The only thing I can do now is withdraw attention and wait. I know intellectually that’s the right move, but when you’ve got it bad for a crush that’s hard to do. I have to fight my own instincts.

I think I’m writing right now out of the pain of not getting, and likely losing, her. It’s been a long time since one hurt. It’s probably good for me. Reminds me of what the typical guy is feeling. I’m trying to think of the last one I had it this bad for and can’t think of any. I want to get her out of my mind, but I can’t.

Good Looking Loser is dead; long live GLL. Why Reddit only works for newbies

Good Looking Loser reappeared, for the first time since 2016, with a 3,500-word post, “The Most Important Good Looking Loser Concepts to Get Your Sex Life Right.” It’s a rehash of the rest of the site, but that’s fine, because the site is more or less “complete.” It can be read like a book. There is garbage on that site (supplements, “bath mate,” anything involving the word “gorilla” or “Cernovich”), but if you ignore the garbage and focus on getting laid, you’ll do all right. If you really want to “max out,” your looks, that is.

It’s a site most targeted at underperforming guys in their teens and 20s. It’s less useful for the 40+ crowd, where guys should still work on their looks but are realistically not going to be as cut as 23-year-old guys.

Chris also never goes “all the way.” He says he’s getting married (I hope he has a hell of a prenup). He also never or rarely goes beyond conventional 1:1 dating and into sex clubs. Maybe he’s not into that kind of thing. To me it’s a pre-selected venue for highly-sexed women.

(This blog will eventually die too, or decline into theoretical rants. I’m not as driven by sex as I was in my teens, twenties, or early thirties. I don’t have as much to say about it beyond what I’ve already said, and other guys, like Krauser and Tom Torero, have far better step-by-step material than me.)

I tried submitting “The Most Important Good Looking Loser Concepts to Get Your Sex Life Right” to the seduction page of Reddit, and I got the following message from “ThrowawayPUA”

GLL is banned from seddit for a variety of good reasons.
Don’t join them.

If you’ve wandered over here from Reddit, you now know why Reddit is filled with newbie material. There’s nothing wrong with newbie material (almost all of us have been there), but the advanced material is all on blogs or in books.

While I’m writing this, the top post on seduction is “A Rant from a girl: Why it isn’t working for you…” No link because it’s typical stupid girl stuff, a mix of things that are kind of true some of the time and things that are downright wrong, and it has 600 upvotes. Meanwhile, the last the couple deep, complex posts from Nash got like four upvotes.

If you’re spending time on Reddit, you’re among the sheep who lead the other sheep. There is some utility, but to learn something beyond “just be confident,” go somewhere else. Newbies often lack the capacity to understand what good advice is. Think back to school and the stupid, noisy person in class trying to one-up the teacher or professor. That person doesn’t know what they don’t know.

The quiet ones

Earlier this week a ridiculously quiet, reticent woman who I know only slightly declined my invitation to get a drink, and while I’m obviously fine with that, she reminded me of “Emma,” a woman I slept with a couple years ago.

I knew Emma slightly through work (she didn’t work with me or for me and our connection was sufficiently distant for me pursing her to be not a problem). Emma was pretty, a high six or maybe low seven, and very quiet. “Very quiet” is an understatement. She barely spoke or moved.

When I first talked to her, I don’t remember what I said, but I do remember how she barely reacted at all. To the extent that I asked questions, she’d answer in one word or sentence answers. Somehow I got her number and got her to agree to get a drink with me.

On the first date she was very quiet and nervous. But she complied with pretty much everything I asked. We went to a first bar, a second bar, then back to my apartment. I probably said 90 to 95% of the spoken words.

In reading the game literature, you’ll learn that most guys will have to lead the conversation most of the time in most ways at the start of a relationship, from the moment the open happens. A guy often knows the seduction is going well when the woman invests more in the conversation than he does. The conversational dynamic flips, as the woman’s investment increases. This doesn’t always happen (and often doesn’t), but it’s a positive sign when it does.

That didn’t happen with Emma. She never warmed. I’ve been out with a handful of girls like her, but none as extreme as her. Those girls were all actually pretty easy to game. I have a theory about why: because they’re dysfunctionally anti-social, almost no guy will pursue them, because from the outside they seem cold. But they may not be cold. They may just be socially dysfunctional.

The first night we kissed and I got her down to her underwear, but she refused to go further. I think she got herself off with her own fingers, or maybe she faked it. I don’t know or, now, care. But she did come over for dinner as a second date and we had sex.

In bed she wasn’t great, but by then I’d learned to be sufficiently dominant that I didn’t care much about “her” skill level, which could be a post of its own. I read stories about guys who complain about women who just starfish. While starfishing is lame, a dominant guy should have a gameplan for how to deal with it and how to show the woman where to go, when to go there, how to move there, and what to do when she’s there. Use a collar, restraints, rope, etc. as needed. If she’s bad at sex, chances are she’ll like being told what to do even more than most chicks do.

I did that with Emma and while an active, engaged girl who likes to express her sexuality is obviously better than an inept one, I can deal with inept and still have a pretty good time.

Unfortunately, after four or five sessions, Emma finally began to open up about her social anxiety. This was right about the time she was also getting the hang of sex. She’d only had sex with two guys, a one-night stand in college and a boyfriend, and both had apparently been shit in bed. We all know that girls lie about sex constantly, but I believed her because she was so inept.

When the dam broke, I heard way more about Emma than I wanted to. I heard about her anxiety, her fear, her family (also full of nutjobs). A little before that happened, I asked her what she liked about me and she could only shrug and say I was “cute.” That actually means, I think, that I was the only guy who bothered persevering through her silences.

Apart from her giving me her number and showing up, she did absolutely nothing to help things along. She didn’t suggest things. I practically ordered drinks for her.

Realistically, I should’ve just let her be in the first place, but she was pretty and not hard to get in bed (for me). Once there, she did what I wanted to do, and I should’ve cut her off earlier than I did. But like many men I can be weak in the face of pussy, and she got severe oneitis for me. A guy who is sufficiently high status, or sufficiently high status in the eyes of a few women, gets to experience what the typical woman does, and it’s revealing.

When Emma told me that she loved me after like six weeks of sex, I knew I had to break things off. I stupidly tried to ease back towards casual sex, which made her chase me even more. So the breakup was not very clean, although I technically did nothing wrong, except fuck a chick in a way that she’d never been fucked before, which pretty much made her head explode. This isn’t a brag about how I’m so great in bed; I don’t think I am, necessarily, but I’m technically good and know how to pay attention to women, like most guys probably don’t.

But let’s focus on the positive point for guys in game instead of the crazed love behavior she later exhibited: it’s sometimes better to persevere in the face of indifference than it is to give up. Chicks give up easily because they’re chicks. If a guy wants to make things happen, he can sometimes do so just by continuing, in a socially aware way, even in the face of female ambivalence. Emma kept complying up to sex, despite her apparent indifference.

Quiet girls want sex too. They’re just incapable of showing it a lot of the time. They wait for some guy to advance them into it. Be that guy.

Value & idiots

Another day, another great post from Nash, on “cool guy” game verus “real value” and how there are no (or few, in my view) hacks in game. I’m not going to talk about all the ways it’s right, because you can read it for yourself. I would qualify a few things.

Nash’s basic thesis is correct: the vast majority of guys need to focus on building value. If they don’t, they’ll likely fail, or at the very least achieve nothing like they should succeed. Game is about building value and then learning to deliver that value.

I love this community, but I would also like to help clean it up… brush some of the intellectual garbage off our streets.

That’s a fantastic, noble sentiment, but I also don’t think it’s going to happen. It’s not going to happen because lots of people want something for nothing. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have adjustable rate mortgages, credit cards that aren’t paid off monthly, car loans that people can’t afford, pyramid schemes, lotteries, boiler room operations, astrology, and the innumerable other parasites out there that exist because people are stupid and want something for nothing. There will always be a market for “this one weird trick to help you pick up girls” or “top ten things REAL ALPHAS do and you should too.” Let’s fantasize about a trick instead of learning the only sustainable trick is hard fucking work (for most guys).

It’s also hard to clean up the community because most people are just stupid, or cognitively deficient, or whatever you want to call it.

She knows me very well, and can actually see all my real value (I used to be her boss, she has seen me “kill people” in business, she has seen my work drive real results in terms of big dollars, she has seen other girls chase me, she has seen my house, my art, all of it… this is real VALUE).

Genuinely stupid people generally can’t accomplish that. Stupid people (and even people of average intelligence) can’t write two- or three-thousand word, complex, Nash-level posts on the finer aspects of game.

Stupid people can tweet, post one-liners to Reddit, and leave stupid comments that miss the point. Stupid people aren’t going to read Nash’s two thousand words. They’re going to skip to YouTube videos. The people consuming garbage aren’t going to “get” Nash because they don’t have the attention span to read and understand him.

Even you, the reader of this, right now, probably doesn’t have the attention span. I know because I’ve written a lot about books. Without having done a lot of reading, I wouldn’t be able to write this blog. Most book mentions include an Amazon referral tag.

Out of curiosity, I check out how many guys buy the book.

Very few. It’s true that they might buy it from somewhere else, but I doubt it. Those who don’t buy it, can’t read it. Even those who do buy it probably don’t read it. I think more guys in the community, or at the edges of the community, are just stupid, than most of us like to admit.

Krauser has written about “no-hopers” in his books. There are more no-hopers out there. In my personal life, I’ve run into many of them, of both genders. “Why doesn’t she like me?” “Why won’t Mr. Hot Guy keep me around after sex?” Well, start by quitting sugar, going to the gym, and developing real hobbies. “But that’s hard!” “I know.”

Without getting into detail, I’ll say that I’ve done some teaching, recruiting, training, and mentoring. The mental capabilities of the average person, let alone the below-average person, are just much lower than the average high-IQ person thinks.

We all lives in bubbles. Including Nash and including me. One cool thing about game is that it gets us out of our bubbles. Somewhat. Unless a guy, like Nash, has a lot of exposure to the general public, he may be underestimating just how weak the average guy really is. The average guy doesn’t have the cognitive processing skills to read and comprehend Nash’s posts.

I’d argue 90% of the guys that say that… totally give a fuck. They really, really give a fuck. I know I give a fuck… I do. And saying “I give zero fucks” is a way of pretending. It’s completely transparent, and no one is convinced at all. It’s more lame “cool guy game” from guys that aren’t actually cool. And the community pushes this CONSTANTLY.

That’s true, but I think sometimes those guys who say “Don’t give a fuck” are actually saying, “Strive towards outcome independence, but realize that the average outcome will be failure.” It’s hard, almost paradoxical, to understand that the median and mode outcomes of game will be zero, while also realizing that it’s important to attempt. Attempting to achieve “outcome independence” is another way of saying, “Try not to give a fuck about any particular person.”

You should give a fuck, of course, about doing your best and building your value. But you should also realize that if you care deeply about every interaction, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Overwhelming disappointment that may crush you.

Being “chill” and “nonchalant” in the face of shit tests is also good.

It’s vital to give a fuck overall while also letting the dead leads go.

It’s hard to do. Sometimes it’s still a little bit hard for me.

Game is hard because, like many domains of human life, opposites can be simultaneously true. Give a fuck about improvement. Give a fuck about value. Give a fuck about doing the work. Give a fuck about doing the best you can in the moment. Don’t give a fuck about the outcome, if possible.

Don’t take advice from tweets. 140 or 240 characters is not enough for understanding.