“How America Grew Bored With Love” and needs GAME

How America Grew Bored With Love is about how America is now excessively sterile because guys have no game and women are cunts. Guys reading this cannot help the latter problem but can improve the “no game” problem. The article echoes much that you have read here:

Erich Fromm, a Jewish psychologist and philosopher who moved from Germany to New York to escape Nazi persecution, wrote in his brilliant and forever salient book The Art of Loving that love, like any art—engineering, painting, playing an instrument—requires knowledge and effort.

“Our whole culture,” Fromm explained, “is based on an appetite for buying.” As a result, most people think of love only as an acquisition—how can they be loved—rather than learning how to love another. Falling in love is involuntary, but to protect and preserve a more mature and long-term love, the lover must have the discipline, maturity, and faith to “stand in love.”

That’s right: love is a SKILL, not just “something that happens,” contrary to what you have heard from the feminist culture at larger. It is especially a skill for men. Men engineer love/lust in women. Game shows guys how to do this, at the physical and emotional levels. Most guys don’t learn this skills, so they putter around playing video games and watching porn instead of f**king live chicks, which requires that they leave their hourses.

Guys should be careful with their money. If you don’t have money, “No money” becomes your one and only abiding problem that must be solved before all others. I have written a number of finance and career posts, most notably arguing that most guys allocate their money poorly. Most guys spend too much on housing (especially buying McMansions in suburbs or exurbs) and on transport (hot chicks don’t actually care what kind of car you drive). Money should be spend on food (good nutrition), gym (sometimes including personal training if you can find a personal trainer), and to a lesser extent good-quality clothes that fit your body.

Money should not be spent on an expensive “name brand” car. Right now, three to five year old used cars are a fantastic deal. Better yet, get a three-year-old Zero Electric bike for $5,000 and spend nothing on maintenance and almost nothing on fuel while making your date’s eyes bug out. Money should not be spent on a woman’s desire to compete with other women for housing. Much of my best game has been done in a studio apartment in a desirable location that was close to one or two good bars. Beginners in the game think about what to say to a chick, intermediates and above think about logistics because we know chicks are fundamentally irresponsible and want the bang to “just happen.” So we set up the conditions necessary to make it “just happen” for her because we “have some wine” at home.

Dating and impressing chicks costs far less than the typical guy thinks. The typical guy wastes too much money on the wrong stuff. The minimum you need is very minimal. Cleanliness and interpersonal affect are 10x more important than a stereotypically “impressive” car or house. Fromm was right decades ago and he is still right today. The capitalist marketing machine wants you to spend as much as possible and smart guys resist firmly. Smart guys spend time dead lifting more than time shopping.

Stevie Wonder sang in what is now a terribly unfashionable song, “Love’s in Need of Love Today,” that Americans might not have much love for love, and might have lost their desire to watch or listen to depictions of love, because love is subversive to its empire of ego.

This song is not unfashionable. It is true and that’s why it is still good. But it’s also true that guys need either no/very little ego (in the Stoic case) or titanic ego to succeed today. I try to have no/little ego but acknowledge that the “titanic ego” guys can succeed. Most guys have too much ego, in the wrong dimensions, to succeed.

I think love is fantastic, but I am also a realist in that love should not lead to marriage because modern, legal marriage is a catastrophe for men. Instead, I advocate that men do love but without marrying or even necessarily being monogamous.

Men cannot allow themselves to fall in love with a woman before she falls in love with im. Men also must know that most women will fall “out” of love with him before he does with her. Men also need to know that cohabitating will typically kill love, even as women push for cohabitation. Remember how Fromm argued that love is a SKILL? It is a skill most women don’t have and don’t or can’t understand. As a guy, we must be better. Feminism argues for “equality,” but equality must be earned, not given, and very few women earn it. Guys should know this.

Women still want and yearn to yield to a high-status man, but most men have not learned to be men, leaving women frustrated and un-f**ked. When women encounter a man who behaves like a man, they are often flustered, aroused, and confused because it happens so rarely. Game teaches guys how to be guys in a culture that is stupidly pushing guys to be androgynous quasi-humans who hide their dicks. To love requires experience, passion, and getting out of your apartment, out of your video games, out of your movies/TV, and into the real world. It requires the ability to endure pain and rejection, which most modern guys are too fragile to do.

The concept of “gender nonbinary” and the like has become popular in recent years. I reject that utterly. I am extremely gender binary. I’m a man, and feminine women are attracted to masculine men. If you want ugly, fat, mannish women, be androgynous. If you want feminine, attractive women, be a man. You won’t learn how in (most) school, except sometimes from physical education and some science classes. Chicks are waiting out there to be f**ked by a man who is a man.

Go get them.

Advertisements

Why the United States is filled with fatties

  1. Fewer Americans bike to work despite new trails, lanes and bicycle share programs” (biking to work is also far cheaper than driving).
  2. Sugar consumption remains high and might be increasing.

What you can do about these problems is clear: quit sugar and ride a bike. Like many things, these changes may be hard at first, but once you make them, you will be baffled that everyone doesn’t.

Don’t just be a consumer: A cyclist is a disaster for the economy

A disaster for the economy, and a win for the individual. The less you spend, the less you have to earn, and the less you are taxed, and the more you can make friends, interact with people, have sex, etc., instead of slaving away to pay for your spending habits. Earn to live instead of living to earn.

Most chicks don’t actually care much about your earnings or earnings potential. They want a guy who is functional, who makes them laugh, who has a decent body, who has good sex.  Most chicks don’t really care about the stuff Hollywood and the advertising edifice wants you to think they care about.

Go ahead. Be a disaster for the economy. Then watch how everyone around you wants to pull you back into the same bucket they’re scrambling around in. Spend less, live more.

One of the smartest things a guy can do is make a lot of money and spend a little. Almost no one does this. Why not?

Profiling girls by age is not that useful

I’ve read a lot of posts and questions about profiling girls by age. I don’t think it’s very useful to profile girls by age, because girls vary too much by type. I read a lot of, “Women over 30 are no longer looking for just sex like younger women.” But I’m considerably over age 30 and this isn’t true at all: Women over age 30 who have partied a lot and are tired of partying, are looking for a provider guy to have kids with. They probably won’t be interested in casual sex offers.

But women over age 30 who have gotten out of a marriage or LTR… watch out. They are ready to fuck.

I think it varies some by life course so far. A lot of people (more than The Red Pill would have you believe) get sucked into long-term, monogamous or mostly monogamous relationships through a lot of their 20s. Many of those relationships dissolve in the late 20s or early 30s. For those people… men and women… the dissolution often leads to a casual sex explosion.

Meantime, a lot of people party through their 20s… have lots of casual sex… and in their 30s they’re tired of that ride. So they shift gears and want to have a family. This applies to both guys and chicks, too. There’s a reason a lot of 25-year-old guys get in the game, and a lot of 35 – 40-year-old guys have experienced enough to want to have a family, rather than chase around vapid flakey chicks for sex.

There’s also a meme going around that young chicks, 18 – 24, they’re just looking for tons of casual sex. There are chicks like this. There are also a lot of chicks who are more conservative and inexperienced than guys on the Internet would have you believe. Who find the prospect of sex kind of scary. Who find men in general scary (if also intriguing). Some young chicks can be conservative and gradually lose their sexually conservative temperament through experience. I have met and sometimes talked to these girls.

I have also been called every imaginable name by young chicks (“gross,” “disgusting,” “you’re old enough to be my dad,” etc.). Those young chicks… are not for me. I’ve also been told I’m everything amazing by young chicks (“no one has ever done that to me.” “I can’t move my leg.” “You’re making me fall in love with you”). The difference is in the chick, more than in me.

What I’m saying is that I don’t think profiling chicks by age is that useful. There is a lot of noise in the data. It’s definitely true that a lot of 28 – 40 year old chicks are looking for a provider guy. It’s also true that a lot of chicks in that age bracket are exiting long-term relationships and want to f**k some guys to get it out of their systems, or just for the pleasure of it. It’s also true that some chicks love sexual variety throughout their life spans. Some chicks are prudes throughout their life spans.

I can’t tell you how many divorced women I’ve met at sex clubs. Some are even attractive.

For a guy, focus less on age and more on who a girl really is. Focus on improving your own value. Focus on accepting that most chicks will say no most of the time. Don’t be too worried about generalizing about chicks based on age.

Environment will matter too. If a chick is living in the Midwest, and all her friends are getting married and having kids, she will want to do the same. If you put the same chick in NYC, and all her friends are having casual sex, she will want to do the same. If she is in front of her whole family, she will be reticent. If she is on vacation, she might be down for casual sex. Much more than men, chicks are products of their environment. This is part of the reason players learn to be non-judgmental. Chicks learn to be shamed for their sexuality throughout their entire lives. When chicks find a guy who doesn’t do that to them, they often get very very excited.

What open relationships look like for a bottom, beta guy

When a Boyfriend Joins the Marriage” is from the New York Times so it is about a bottom, beta guy in an “open” marriage (read: his wife directs everything). It’s what the typical Red Pill guys think about open relationships, because they are imagining themselves in the bottom-guy position. I wrote “Open or poly relationships from the superior position or inferior position” to look at the issue from the top, alpha guy position. For top guy guys, open relationships can solve retention problems.

Top guys have different problems and don’t get married. Or, if they do get married and their wife wants an outside lover, they get divorced.

It’s also true that guys need to f**k their partners good. This story by a spinster, feminist writer is about her mom getting pregnant by a man the mom isn’t married to, and how the feminist writer learns her actual father’s identity. You may think this is another “All women are like that” story, but the mom isn’t getting f**ked by her husband, and the husband consents to the mom living in New York City while he works upstate.

It looks like the husband is at fault as much as or more than the mom. He’s not f**king her, so she finds someone else who will. Red Pill guys are overly eager to blame failed relationships on women. If you’re a guy and in a relationship with a woman, you need to f**k her regularly and thoroughly, or she will legitimately look for affection somewhere else. I mentioned an occasional lover of mine who has a stronger libido than her husband’s, and she is out looking for the sex she isn’t getting at home. Same thing with Peaches.

Reciprocity is a two-way street. I would not put up with a woman who won’t f**k me (barring legitimate medical problems). Women will not put up with a man not f**king them.

For every hot girl you see, chances are someone is f**king her. You might as well try to make you be the guy who is.

Female “friends:” the comprehensive statement.

Experienced guys can quit this post right now, as it’s about an obvious topic, so you don’t need to read it. But it comes up with such frequency online that I want one, comprehensive discussion of it.

A guy on Reddit says, “Anyone else find themselves increasingly distant from female ‘friends’?”

Those scare quotes around “friends” are good. The guy goes on, “Have you guys also found it more and more difficult to have girls around who are only friends? I struggle to see how other guys have girls around only as friends (unless they’re ugly).” He’s right. If a guy is around a girl he finds attractive, he should make a move on her within the first week of meeting. Maybe slightly longer in some situations, like if they go to school together and will be forced into a lot of proximity.

One of the commenters said something smart,

Almost none of those women you call “friends” are friends, in the sense that they are loyal, caring, trusted people in your life. They are people who know you, and may occasionally hang out with you.

But you would be less than nothing to them the instant you start to be a social drag on them. Most people are that way, so it is not necessarily a woman thing. It is just that, in my experience, very few men are any good at being a friend, and almost no women are.

As a young and stupid guy, I liked being “friends” with hot chicks because it meant I hadn’t yet been told, definitively, “no.” So I would grind away much of that initial attraction, if any existed at all, by hanging around the hot chick and not making a move. I achieved a paradoxical situation: I found it very easy to lay out girls I was a little bit attracted to, but very hard to get with chicks I was highly attracted to. With chicks I was a little attractive to, I would do almost perfect push-pull, hot-cold game, without knowing what I was doing. I genuinely didn’t care, so I’d run great game and generate loads of attraction. With girls I was attracted to, I’d simultaneously supplicate and avoid making a move.

With girls I was a little bit attracted to, I was an unconscious game expert, dribbling out just the right amount of attention to hook her. I wasn’t very concerned about how good I was in bed, which made me better in bed because I wasn’t worried and became focused on the moment.

With hot girls, girls I thought were truly “top tier” (a stupid thought), I would do the opposite. Timid, scared to make the move, worried about offending her, worried about being told “no.” It took me too long to realize that “no” is great. When I hear a firm “no,” I can give up on that girl and go find a girl to say “yes.” A firm “no” from a chick who means it is actually advantageous to guys.

To guys who are into smashing hot chicks, that is. To guys who are afraid of being rejected, “no” hurts. Most guys who are attracted to their female “friends” aren’t friends. They are too scared to make a move. They are better off making the move, getting to “no,” and then moving on.

I also hadn’t realized that, if I’m not f**king her, chances are that someone else is. Most chicks are being f**ked by someone. Hot chicks, medium chicks, even a lot of ugly chicks. If that hot chick is going to f**k someone, it might as well be me. I wish I had internalized that concept much younger.

When a guy propositions a girl for sex or starts kissing her and she says no, he doesn’t need to make a big deal about it. In fact, the less big a deal he makes, the better. She has been honest with him, and that is good. He doesn’t have to have a “friend breakup” talk. He just needs to direct his attention in more useful directions. Stop texting her, stop the unsolicited contacts. If you see her around, say hi and be cordial. Just don’t increase intimacy. Don’t do one-on-one hangouts. When you find a girl you can bang, you won’t remember why you had it for some girl you couldn’t.

Friendship also thrives on mutual interests. For a lot of guys, their female “friends” are girls they’d really like to fuck. Remove the horny from the situation, or realize that you’re not going to fuck her, and what’s the basis left for the friendship?

Right.

Every guy has 16 waking hours in the day. Time spent with female “friends” is usually not time spent getting laid or being in the gym or hitting on chicks or otherwise improving his life. Most guys who are “friends” with hot girls, are merely providing value to the girl while getting nothing in return. If the guy demands equal value in return, the girl hops to the next male “friend.” This kind of behavior becomes bad for women over time, as older women will eventually lose the beta males who provide this guy of free attention, but for women in their teens and well into their late 20s, using one kind of guy for attention and validation and another kind of guy for sex is common. Telling a 20-year-old-girl that she won’t be able to get away with this when she’s 34 is not going to work or mean anything to her.

In my last two years of school, I got in with a couple of party girls who’d get tons of party invites, and, although I wanted to f**k them, they were genuinely good sources of other leads. I’ve seen guys say, “But girls look at me differently when I’m out with a hot girl!” But do you bang those girls? Putting your dick inside a girl is the real test of anything related to the game, like profit and revenue are the true tests in business. In business, many people will say, “Oh that sounds like a cool product / service.” Do they pay for it? Then they mean it. Do they think someone else might pay for it? Then they do not. Talk is cheap.

Being “friends” with a hot girl seems to get most guys very few lays, from what I can tell. Yes, it might be easier to get warm intros, but most of the time a hot girl trying to pass off her male “friends” to other chicks is not going to succeed. Other girls are like, “If he’s so great, why aren’t you dating him?”

Exactly.

With those two girls towards the end of school, I wanted to bang them, but I didn’t, and I didn’t care that much. This was a rare circumstance where being the hot girl’s friend led to me getting laid. But by then, I’d also gotten used to meeting chicks and escalating. Meeting chicks at college parties is the easiest thing in the world. Eventually I started dating one, and that was around the time I really got over my fear of “no.”

Anyone who is old enough will remember ladder theory from the earlier days of the Internet. It’s kind of stupid but gets the basic idea that women by and large put men into two categories, one for potential sex and one for everything else, including “friendship.” Men mostly want women for sex. I have very some female friends, but they’re women I’ve either had sex with before or don’t want to have sex with. If a guy genuinely doesn’t want to have sex with a woman… and she brings genuine skills or insight to the table… then being friends is fine. Being friends because you don’t have the balls to try and f**k her is bullshit.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve observed some of the “friend zone” in reverse, in which women will maintain friendships with men in hopes of getting the man to invest in her fat self and especially her fatherless children. This isn’t a great look for the woman, and it reflects the way male sexual value frequently peaks later than female sexual value. It seems that younger guys have problems with female friends, and older guys learn 1. what true friendship is, 2. not to hide our dicks, and 3. if she isn’t f**king me, she probably isn’t important to me.

With all that context, however, it’s possible for high-value guys to have female friends, if they’re already getting all the sex they want from other sources. I have (had? can’t tell right now) a lover nicknamed Ms. Slav, and I would not be surprised if we shift towards a friend/mentor role. I like her in a lot of ways, but I have other lovers who are in some ways more compatible than she is. The age gap, combined with her interests and proclivities, mean that we might not be suitable as lovers. Like the girls I knew at the end of college, she is an interesting person AND I am getting about as much sex as I want, so we wouldn’t be “friends” with me quietly hoping she comes around to sex with me. We’ve already been lovers, and I’m not accepting a fake “friendship” as a second- or third-best option.

In my own life, the highest-value guys have very rarely had problems with “the friend zone.” If a chick won’t f**k them, they move on. Lower-value guys should do the same thing. Attention is the only tool modern guys have, and most guys waste it. No guy needs to be rude to a woman who rejects him, so it’s not like he can never say hi when she passes on the street, but he should withdraw attention. She’s not his friend. We all have internal mechanisms that make us want to lie to ourselves about all sorts of things. Being true to yourself and accepting the Red Pill is about not lying to yourself. When you don’t lie, you can assess your own weaknesses, assess how to fix them, and assess what you really want (as opposed to what you think you’re supposed to want). You may not entirely know what you want, or you may have multiple, conflicting desires. I have that problem right now. But I also acknowledge it and am aware of it. Not all problems can be solved. The female “friend” problem? That one’s easy to solve.

Hollywood knows exactly what to “do” with childless women

A head-in-the-sand feminist writes, “Hollywood Still Doesn’t Know What to Make of Childless Women.” But that’s not true: Hollywood reflects a lot of society and biology. Older women out of their child-bearing years are of no interest to men, who like younger and fertile women. Younger women aren’t interested in them except insofar as they’re a warning about what not to do. Older women who have children are focused on their children and families, not on spinsters. The audience for movies about childless women is very small.

We all reap what we sow. The writer, Megan Garber, is an overweight woman struggling to make a living writing for a content mill. She’s heading towards spinsterhood, so her interest in the issue makes sense.

Older women derive meaning from their families. Those without families usually bitterly regret not having them.