Sailor socialist girl doesn’t care, and it’s not about economic systems

The conversation in the last post turned towards what “socialist” and “feminist” identifying girls mean… and the answer is usually, “not much,” because most conversations are about expressing feelings and hierarchy… the number of “socialists” who even understand what that entails is minimal. When she says she’s a socialist, she’s expressing what she sees as a “caring” underlying value and framing you as “uncaring” by comparison. The number of people interested in ideas is small. A lot of male nerd engineers treat all conversations like engineering problems and consequently don’t get laid much because their engineering mindset, while important at school and work, repels feelings-based women.

When she says she’s a socialist… she doesn’t really care.

She’s not a policymaker.

Her vote doesn’t make a big difference in her life.

There’s a big gap between any functional country and Venezuela… it will take a really long time for any functional country to hit Venezuela or Soviet Union or Cuba levels… she wants to feel good, to feel taken care of, to make other people feel like they’ll be taken care of… Mark J says in the comments, “Debating Western girls like this, (usually white, middle class with a college education paid for by daddy who I guarantee you made his money in a very unsocialist fashion, is a waste of time.) The only appropriate response is to ignore her or ridicule her.” I disagree a bit… “ridicule” never changes minds and doesn’t get guys laid… “ignore her” makes more sense, particularly for a guy looking to get laid, not teach basic economics.

Continue reading “Sailor socialist girl doesn’t care, and it’s not about economic systems”

Character, game, dating, and would YOU swap lives?

I was talking to Lee Cho daygame on Twitter about this, “One thing I’ve noticed about the game guys who write in depth… very few make me think, ‘I want to be that person.’ Many seem to have something interesting about them but very few seem top of the heap.” Most of the online game guys seem to have a bit of a screw loose, or lack common sense, or the ability to connect (for real, in a deep way) with other people… this shows, eventually, in their writing. Roosh might be the poster boy for this effect… I read him a bit years ago, probably like 2011 or 2013 or something, and found him interesting in terms of his game obsession but, even then, it was obvious that something was internally wrong with him, psychologically or spiritually, for lack of better words. Top guys (and girls… this is really a “human” thing, not a “man” or “woman” thing) have internal congruence, and people who lack it stand out… which Roosh seemed to, even back then… his interest in f**king women seemed to come from underlying dislike and disdain for women… which many women no doubt sensed, even if they couldn’t articulate what was off about him. So the higher-value, better-put-together women probably avoided him… which reinforced some of his negative views about women… leading to a cycle. Mature adults are highly attuned to congruence and will distance themselves from people who lack congruence.

There is “good screw loose” in the sense of someone who is smart but sees the world differently, and there is “bad screw loose” in the sense of someone who is off, f**ked up, etc. The online game guys don’t seem like they have a screw loose in the crazy inventor / startup founder / rogue genius way… it’s more like a screw loose in the way of the kid no one wants to pick for their team/group… even if the online guys get really good and accomplished at game. A lot of top girls, even the ones who are open to cold approach (lots are), are going to judge a guy based on his social world and social network… if the guy doesn’t have one, or much of one, she’s going to spot that quickly. So it’s going to be hard for a lot of guys to get or retain better girls… there are limits to the front. The better girls are also going to be super curious about character, and, if they find it lacking, they are going to pull away.

In real life… the people I most like and admire, I wouldn’t want to literally take over their lives, exactly, but there’s a lot in them to emulate, not just in their field of expertise, usually. Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is. Among guys developing game skills… almost none of them I’d want to trade places with… not at even odds… the number whose overall lives I admire… is pretty small. We’ve all probably met people who are “successful” in some domain, but there is something wrong with them, and whatever is wrong keeps them from getting to where they might get otherwise.

Take… let’s use the “all women blah blah blah” guys as an example. I agree that all women have the capacity to blah blah blah (whatever the example is)… but not all will… an example story from my life… there are others. Or the ones who say all women are lazier and worse than men in a bunch of ways… well, one study claims that women in their 20s now out-earn men in their 20s… one of my own early work mentors was a woman… she was at the top of her field. On average women are worse-suited to leading and creating large organizations… but there are exceptions, and “on average” conceals a lot… in terms of dating, all women have the capacity to cheat, sure… but not all do/will. If you think so, try to get women to have a philander with you… some will, but a lot won’t. If the woman is stepping out… there’s usually also something wrong with you, with her, or with the relationship… but men don’t like to emphasize that.

Top women… don’t put up with less-than-top men… women will also show you who they are, usually pretty early, and MOST GUYS IGNORE THE SHOW. Then… they bitch when the woman acts the way she has shown him she will act… you already knew, or should have known, who she is, but you choose to ignore that (the p***y is good) and then come to the Internet to cry… or to your friends… meanwhile… are you asking yourself who you are, and what you are bringing to the relationship… no, you are not… are you asking yourself what signs you missed… probably not.

If a woman bitches about all the cads she meets, and how guys are all blah blah blah… it’s like, you have probably met thousands of men, and if they are “all like this…” what do they all have in common… you? Same thing with men. Same thing in business. Have you ever met a manager whose employees are somehow all stupid and incompetent? Or an employer who can’t ever get workers? If he says that… then the manager hasn’t learned to be a manager, he hasn’t learned to help people level up their skills, or something is wrong with him if EVERYONE is incompetent. The business is not paying enough, or something else is the matter. I have already written about the most common problem women who can’t find a man have, “Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures.” Well, in business, if a manager or company cannot find any employees, then something is wrong with wages, work environment, location, or something else. It’s up to the manager to diagnose those problems and make changes. Markets are pretty efficient. Most often the problem is wages. People want to make more money, not less, and if the firm is not paying adequately, people will go to the firms that are.

Character judgment is hard and often separate from physical attraction… most people claim to want both in one… most often they pick one and go for that… and get results consistent with it. Extremely effective people blame themselves for successes or especially failures, even when the success or especially failure is outside of their control. The question is always, “What could I have done differently?” “What do I do differently in the future?” Kids rarely do this… to a kid, it’s always someone else’s fault… to the true adult, it’s always my fault, even if it’s someone else’s fault… the most effective people do this… if you follow Elon Musk you know that he knows just about every single part that goes in a SpaceX rocket or Tesla car… he learns relentlessly, because he knows that if the rocket explodes, no matter whose fault it is, it is his fault. Look at the Boeing managers, by contrast. In Boeing, it is always someone else’s fault. But Boeing has an unfair crony capitalist market that is heavily tied into politicians, so Boeing can’t fail, over the short term, because it’s being propped up by regulators. Unless you are a trust fund kid or something, you have to get by on your own wiles.

Character judgment is separate from technical ability… people who are wise are doing it all the time… it is what I am doing when I write, “One thing I’ve noticed about the game guys who write in depth… very few make me think, ‘I want to be that person.’ Many seem to have something interesting about them but very few seem top of the heap.” Maybe they are different in real life… reading their writing, though, problems with character, personality, and intellect seem to leak out… even among the ones with very high technical skill… Krauser is probably the most technically skilled person writing about the game… but as for his character… read his blog/memoirs closely and decide for yourself… don’t take my word… don’t take my word for anything… try it for yourself… develop your own style, sense of judgment, etc. I can help you think about how to think about things, but I can’t tell you what to think. Many people never develop these skills properly and suffer for it, including many guys who are technically good at game.

I have seen some of the RSD videos, and none or almost none of them make me think, “This guy is admirable and I’d want to hang out with him.” Some of them probably have game… almost none of them seem like guys I admire.

There are exceptions… red pill dad seems pretty well put together, although I disagree with him in places… same with Magnum… not surprisingly, they want to stay anonymous… cause they know in the real world, the penalty of being made known is high… the amount of money one can earn from coaching is low… and most guys can’t be helped cause they’re too incompetent to be helped, or have deep problems, and “bad with chicks” is a manifestation of their underlying problems. A symptom, not a cause. A few guys can be helped… they are the ones I am most speaking to. The number of psychologically okay, well-put-together adult men who don’t have a real job, is super small. There is a lot of “location-independent income” roleplay happening online. I am 100% in favor of real small businesses that can do real location-independent income… that is, however, far harder to achieve than the online hucksters would have the average guy believe, as stated. Most of the guys pitching this… have little evidence of it. I don’t think I know any adult guy in real life, who is put together effectively and doesn’t have a real job of some kind. Effective adult guys… have a job… almost all of the time.

Effective guys also evaluate their effects on other people. There is a lot of “tough guy” role play online right now, among guys who think COVID precautions are stupid. Effective guys who are in touch with older parents / relatives / employers / employees… don’t wish to get those people sick, even if they don’t care too much about themselves… that is a point in How I see dating, girls, COVID-19, and the quarantines, right now.” Willful disregard of others tells us something about the guy, his mental state, and his social world. What it tells us… is not good. We know that the route through COVID and minimizing it runs through masks… yet there’s a bunch of anti-mask roleplay online (masks are a tool, not a symbol). Some guys will mistake the online game for the real world… which is sad… but maybe becoming more common.

If you read this whole piece… along with the original internal congruence one… you will see that a lot of it is about boy psychology versus man psychology… as well as, a bit less, girl psychology versus adult woman psychology. Girls are often attracted to men… and men are often attracted to younger women… but it is useful to see how and where these things intersect… and what maturity looks like. Some women reach psychological and emotional maturity very early… and if a man can’t match them, and grow with them, he is not going to last with her. People are messed up in some ways, are often attracted to and attractive to other people who are messed up. I mostly avoid the most messed-up girls (and guys)… I have f**ked girls who are somewhat messed up… probably not smart buy I have done it… but I have kept them at a distance. If the girl finds you messed up enough, and not in an attractive dark broody way, she is not going to f**k you… she is going to fade away. She doesn’t want to be in your life, like you don’t want to be in the lives of people with bad/weak character.

The male analogy: young guys blowing their military cash

There’s a male analogy to the sex workers mentioned in What the thinking escort is thinking… young guys who enlist in the military and then blow their cash. I’m chatting with a guy via email and he brought up the Netflix documentary Hot Girls Wanted… it’s a sad film, for lots of reasons… the number of women suited to doing sex work is not high, and porn is not a good idea today because the market flooded years ago… seriously, practically every porn ever made is online, on streaming sites or in torrent sites… so doing porn for money is stupid. Reddit’s full of unpaid peer-to-peer amateur porn. The market is glutted… gotta move on. The opportunities that existed for “porn stars” to make money existed from about 1970 – 2009… that window is now closed, but the high-end escort market still exists.

The guy I’m chatting with mentioned that in the documentary, most of the girls work for a couple months or a year, get paid a lot of money by teenage standards… and spend it all. One girl, however, has a boyfriend the whole time, saves her money, goes home after she’s done working, and has a bunch of investment cash at the end of her time. She avoids the purses, clothes, and whatever else young dumb girls spend their money on. She’s a disciplined investor who realizes that she’s only got a few possible years of good earnings.

The situation reminds me of guys in the military… you’ve probably known them… to a typical 18 year old 20 – 30k and low expenses seems like all the money in the world, so it’s easy to throw that money around. Disciplined guys get out in 4 – 6 years and have 50k+ saved up… chow is covered, housing is covered in some/many circumstances. Outside every big base, though, are a bunch of car dealerships… you’ve signed the enlistment papers… that’ll get you a high-interest loan so you can get the fancy vehicle… then you have to spend money on gas, parking, transporting the vehicle, insurance. The girl from high school is tired of working her minimum wage job, so she’s suddenly interested in getting married… she’s so pretty and willing… and she’ll be loyal to you while you’re overseas… of course she will, baby… a lot of guys can get out with nothing, sometimes less than nothing. Smart guys save that cash and use their educational allotments wisely when they get out.

This equivalence is not exact, obviously, so don’t stretch it too far… an attractive woman can make a million dollars with relatively low time commitments from age 20 – 30… living in a big city is far more fun than living on bases… military guys are very unlikely to make a million, even half that, and military guys have hugely more downside… just ask the guys who spent most of their time in third-world holes… but that similarity remains, lots of people who get cash early blow it. For most people, lifestyle expands to the amount of money you’re making… I’ve been guilty of this too in some ways.

The whole American edifice is built on debt… I admire people like Mr Money Mustache, who questions the whole debt/consumption treadmill. The things that really matter in life are 1. who you’re connected to and 2. what you’re making/creating. Most big-ticket spends (housing, cars, fancy clothes, pricey restaurants) don’t really improve either… they may be net negatives for both. I like game for many reasons, but one is that game helps improve connections and is also a form of making/creating (connections in this case, more than something tangible). It’s also relatively cheap… it costs some money for drinks/coffee, some money for simple meals, some money for a gym… compared to what most people spend on the big ticket items, it’s low cost. Freedom is the best thing you can buy, and you buy freedom by not spending money, particularly stupid money… most chicks don’t care what car you drive, as long as it’s clean and runs. For a lot of chicks, riding a fun electric vespa-type scooter / bike is a more fun and interesting date than spending a lot of $$$$. Ask what really matters and focus on that…

The smart girls also figure out that the real money isn’t in shooting porn starring themselves, it’s in recruiting other girls. Taking off your clothes and getting f**ked on camera takes no skill. Recruiting other girls to violate social norms by getting f**ked on camera… that takes a lot of skill, perceptiveness, psychological acuity, etc. It’s hard to do. If you think being a worker is hard… try being a manager… everyone thinks they can do what their boss does. Try it sometime.

Couple-to-couple dating mechanics, and keeping a texting roster for sex clubs

(Adapted from the book.)

Most guys are familiar with one-on-one dating, and models for players doing one-on-one dating are widely available. The skills learned in one-on-one dating apply to two-on-two dating. Simple ones include avoiding politics; searching for common ground; understanding hopes, dreams, and aspirations; listening more than speaking (if possible); having stories to share (if possible); etc. All the stuff from How to Win Friends and Influence People, as well as many other books. It’s also helpful to gauge the experience level of the other couple, cause if they’re highly experienced, it’s easy to accelerate towards sex. If they’ve never done a “full swap” (the men have sex with each other’s woman), go more slowly, take more time, and let them ramp up towards it.

There are two critical parts to two-on-two dating: your girl has to be devoted to being on the same team as you are. In addition, she has to be willing to help you succeed with another couple.

Lots of couples with a bi girl in the mix will hunt for a single girl. Single, attractive girls are called “unicorns” for a reason. They can be found, but demand far outstrips supply.

Some of the guys who read here are learning the non-monogamy ropes; most of this is in the book, but I thought I’d excerpt it here for whoever is curious. The person whose Twitter DM inspires it, knows who he is.

Couple-to-couple dating usually happens when contact details are swapped at a party, or when a couple finds each other online (it’s also useful to watch for a guy who tries to get your girl’s contact info: if he does, just tell him that you handle dates). If you’ve met at a party, regular phone numbers or email addresses are typically used. As of this writing, most people online seem to have Kik accounts; people like Kik accounts because they’re relatively anonymous, though I’m sure that the company could be subpoenaed for information about the person behind the pseudonym.

Couples from parties are, in me experience, more reliable and less likely to flake, but some will. First dates are not unlike regular first dates, except harder to coordinate, because they require the schedules of four people to mesh, not just two people. They’re also more likely to end in sex, if everything goes well.

If your girl is aligned with you, it’s useful to evaluate the other couple, even if they already meet your looks threshold. For example, if the guy is a blowhard, or doesn’t show reciprocity, or is disrespectful of you, your girl, or his girl, it’s time to leave. In normal dates, it’s somewhat common to fight through some amount of female bad behavior, much of which may just be a shit test, but if you see bad or indifferent behavior, it’s time to bail. Some girls will come out on dates at the behest of their primary partner, but if she seems bored or uninterested, it’s time to run: she will probably not want actual sex.

Some guys will also pretend to have a girl, then show up to a couples date alone, saying that his girl is out of town. When that happens, leave, obviously.

Remember the fundamental rule of sex clubs: value-for-value. Guys only bring value if they bring a hot chick with them. In normal, 1:1 dating, “value-for-value” is a little bit different, as the guy is assessing the chick’s physical attractiveness and sanity, while the chick is also assessing the guy’s physical attractiveness and sanity, but she’s also assessing a lot more about his social world, his emotional world, his dominance/prestige, etc. Guys who attempt to “give” too much value in the form of paying for expensive dinners, giving gifts prematurely, etc. are actually demonstrating lower value. With 2:2 dating, the value proposition is about two guys bringing two hot chicks to the situation.

There are a fair number of “pic hunters” or “pic collectors” online, and for that reason I’m reluctant to send nudes in advance, in most cases. Sometimes, if the vibe is good, I will, but I minimize that by saying that we prefer to meet each other in person.

It’s good to think of yourself as a guest in someone else’s relationship, and for them to think of themselves as a guest in your relationship. If they don’t conduct themselves appropriately, it’s time to end the interaction. Interaction problems are especially common among new couples who have no social script to follow, and in new couples it’s common for one person to be more excited about non-monogamy than the other person, leading to conflict. That conflict may be submerged at first but will emerge the closer the evening gets to sex. At clubs, I have seen guys start crying the first time they see their partners have sex with someone else, and I’ve seen the same from women. Most people don’t know how they’re going to react, which is why doing this while married or cohabitating is so dangerous for novices.
If this seems over-explained, imagine trying to explain conventional dating, in full, both the subtext and context, to someone who’s never done it before. The basic idea seems simple, but the complexities are sufficient to fill numerous books (most bad, like The Rules) and be the subject of endless gossip. I’m trying to prepare guys for most eventualities.

I spent some time doing two-on-two dating, but I make minimal effort in that domain. If I’m on the market, I’ll typically give one or two apps or websites a look once a week. Today, Feeld is probably the most common app, followed by OKCupid. SwingLifeStyle.com used to be the most common site, but its dated feel dissuades most couples in their 20s. I’ve heard people discuss SDC.com. By the time you read this, some other apps or websites may be common; the dating world changes fast enough that what’s true today may not be true tomorrow.

It’s typically bad form for opposite-sex individuals to contact one another directly. That is, it’s common for guys to talk to each other to make arrangements, for groups of all four people to talk, and for girls to talk to each other, but when a guy contacts the other couple, it’s typically for surreptitious one-on-one sex. Players know that, usually, the most difficult time moving a girl to sex is the first time. After the first time, the guy doesn’t “count” as a new guy, so the girl is much more pliant. Even guys who can’t articulate the situation like this are aware of it, so after a couple-to-couple swap, a fair number of guys will try to arrange sex. That’s where your girl should tell you, “Hey, Joe just texted me to meet up one-on-one.” Then you can either tell Joe to f**k off, or you can ask his girl if they’re also dating separately.

This is a game theory problem. In a two-couple, four-person situation, there are strong reasons to defect, for the sake of the sexual novelty. But a hot chick brings automatic value to the situation, so it’s usually bad practice and bad game to let her go sleep with another guy, one-on-one, with no reciprocity.

Finally, a word on flaking. With a typical, one-on-one date, there are only two possible flaking parties. With a two-on-two date, that number increases to four. Beyond that math, many more people are attracted to the idea of consensual non-monogamy than are ready to execute the idea. In many couples, one party will be far more into it than the other, so the one party will get online, create a profile, start chatting, set up dates, etc., only to have the other party veto the whole thing at the last minute.

In addition, some couples like the idea of consensually f**king other people in theory, but when the moment of turning theory into practice arrives, they no longer like it so much. Flaking and ghosting online typically care no consequences, so people are more willing to engage in bad behavior. Expect a lot of flaking in this domain.

When a couple flakes, I’ll sometimes shoot them an email about the next sex club I’m going to and when I’ll be there. They can show up, or not. This might sound like a waste of time to players used to the normal dating world, but sometimes a couple I’ve interacted with online will show up four or six months later and be down for a great swap. The cost to me is low: I have a list of potential couples on email, kik, and text; I send them all the notice a week or two before the event or club night; and then if they show up, great, and if not, I’m not out much. If the girl is ugly or my girl doesn’t like the guy, we can be polite, say hi, and then fade into the background or move on to other couples. For some couples, the email or text saying, we’re going to the ____ Adult Club, is sufficient to get them off their asses. Others never show, and that’s life. Online life is flakier than real life.

There’s one club in particular where I’m somewhat known (and popular) for bringing in newbies, because I’ll use the above strategy. Couples can debate among themselves whether they want to show up or not. If they cancel two hours before the date, which is sadly common, my girl and I don’t care.

It’s not worth taking flaking seriously: assume you’ll see more flaking rather than less. I don’t spend a lot of time chit-chatting online. After two or three exchanges, I propose a time and place to meet. If they can do it, great. If not, I move on, and I’ll keep them around for party invites. Enough quality chicks and couples have shown up after six months of invites for me to keep up the practice.

Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks

Here is a specific example of the kind of statement I see frequently and I’m sure you have too, if you hang out in pickup and men’s Internet:

Part of the problem is that American chicks are just super fucking flighty, stupid, and picky: selection bias means the chicks on Tinder or online dating in general here, as going to be more flaky, stupid, and picky than chicks who have their shit together.

Two of the most interesting girls I’ve met in the last four years or so, Short Dancer and Ms. Slav, both say they’ve never done online dating. Never. Zero times. No Tinder. They meet men (and women, for Ms. Slav) in real life, at parties, etc. They could be lying, sure, but I don’t know why they would. Both of them have reasonable expectations of men, in my opinion, and they’re both hot. Not hard 9, Playboy-bunny hot… but very few guys would be unhappy with either. Some of the most delusional girls I know, however, have done online dating… a lot of it. Just talking to girls and noticing the ones who complain about online/not being able to get a boyfriend, versus the ones who have reasonable expectations and try to like guys in real life (as opposed to defaulting to NOT liking them and disqualifying them), shows huge differences between the two. I suspect I also have unusual experience among guys writing about the game online because I know and have met a lot of girls, so I get to hear them talk, think, and cogitate. That means I get to hear some delusional thinking, sure, yes… but their words and actions, parsed correctly, do yield insight, over time, when aggregated.

Reasonable girls know there are tons of decent guys out there. Guys who are employed and have normal bodies/personalities. If a girl is not f**king nuts, she won’t be online for long, cause she’ll meet a guy who is okay… and she’ll start dating him. Maybe he won’t be a male 9 and spit tight super entertaining game… but if she’s able to look past some initial fumbling, she gets a boyfriend. If not, and if she has unreasonable expectations… she is online, a LOT. Girls who reject every guy who starts with “Hey” or “how are you?”, are going to select for guys who are clever players. Girls who reject every guy who isn’t at least 1 and ideally 2 points above them in terms of sexual market value (SMV) will spend a lot of time online dating, cause their market isn’t clearing. They will get a lot of sex from higher status guys… who will then drop them… leading them to complain about men… while never looking at their own behavior.

By contrast… I’m thinking of this girl I’ve known for a while, Jane, who was like a 6…. and did online dating for like 5+ years (not sure what she’s up to these days cause I lost interest)… yet despite being a 6, Jane had the personality of a bitchy 8.5+. She was online constantly, with her f**ked up psychology, going through guys and complaining about guys. Her friends were similar… all the friends stated that they wanted boyfriends but somehow none of them could quite hang onto them. They were all young, and some adopted the modern feminist man-hating ethos and pose, which further hurts their ability to get boyfriends… you can’t date a person whose whole class you have taught yourself to hate (men with an underlying hatred of women also do poorly… a lot of older women with declining SMV become bitte towards men as a class, which is a reason they’re often dangerous to date). Jane and her friends are the kinds of girls Red Pill guys complain about.

The Short Dancers and Ms. Slavs of the world… RP guys don’t complain about (well, they might complain about Ms. Slav’s love of sex and uninterest in monogamy, but that’s another story…). The Short Dancers of the world are probably invisible to most Red Pill guys. She’s spent most of her time in a relationship.

The Market for Lemons is a famous paper describing how online dating markets have evolved. In my experience, in the 2009 – 2015 period, online was weird/unusual/thin enough that a lot of chicks on it either had niche tastes or really needed to meet new guys, cause they weren’t offline. They had sufficiently few options that they weren’t totally nuts. Now, however, the online markets are much thicker but normal chicks want to get out of them quickly…. and they do. They maybe spend a few weeks on Tinder. They are not idiots, so they go out on dates pretty quickly and evaluate the guy in person. They know there are lots of decent guys out there. They pick one and get offline. If he is image matched to them, the relationship goes well.

Example: last time I checked, Short Dancer seemed to be dating a male 6, for some reason. No idea why… could be that she wants monogamy real bad and is willing to compromise to get it. She’s at least a high 7 and I’d give her a solid 8. But if she is serious about monogamy, she is likely getting it, and the guy is probably stunned to be getting a girl as hot as her. I think there are more girls like Short Dancer out there than we give credit for… but they are almost all in relationships, if they want to be. If “Katie,” the girl I wrote about a few days ago, were young and in the market today, I bet she would do no or minimal online dating.

It’s easy to sort girls who are really interested in meeting a guy, because they want to meet pretty quickly, even for a 45-minute coffee. The flakey ones want to have long, drawn-out, and pointless online conversations with guys (you can guess who stays on the market).

I have also heard daygame guys say that, if they do a lot of daygame, and then do online, they will sometimes run into girls they daygamed online. And those are much more productive matches.

With this particular girl–let’s call her Double Take–we text a bit on Tinder and then I ask for her number, which she gives. I set up the date for the next day, she agrees, game on.

While we’re texting that day, however, it comes out that I’ve day gamed her! She rejected me, of course, because chicks are rational lol.

I honestly didn’t remember, but she insists I tried to get her number sometime before and that was why she swiped on me.

Obviously daygame is not relevant during coronavirus, but at some point coronavirus will pass or we will get treatments for it, and the game will remain.

Smart guys, today, are figuring out how to get offline to meet chicks, or combine offline/online in a smart way. Even back when online worked fairly well for me, I always did some combination of online and offline. I have also been interested in photography for a long time, and that has helped. Even if you are a good-looking guy, if your photos don’t show it, you will fail. There is serious data showing this. Shirtless bathroom selfies don’t cut it. I have pics of me where I probably look like a male 5 and pics where I might look like a male 9. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but ones that look great. None of the best-looking ones were taken by a cell phone, either, I want to emphasize. The camera is useless if you’re not doing anything interesting, but doing a lot of interesting things and not having visual evidence of it is not useful for online dating. Maybe that sounds like a lot of work, but there is no way around doing the work for a non-elite guy. Girls complaining about online usually have not done the work, internally or externally.

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.

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.

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.

Continue reading “Dating sex positive and non-monogamous girls… and a ramble about the game”

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 every kind of woman they want, and a lot of them spend a couple 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 is not 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?

I’m thinking about this because 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 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.

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.” There is something to those things. 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.

I don’t really have a place I’m going with this. I’m thinking aloud. I also think that 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. 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). I know that if I stop hustling, very soon, no one but my real friends and my family want anything from me. Parts of the human conditions are real dark. 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. There’s some truth to that, too. There’s also some selection bias. I don’t want to repeat the whole thing 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.

“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.