You are part of “The Revolt of The Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium”

If you are reading this, you are part of the revolt the public and the crisis of authority and therefore you should read this book so you better understand your own role in events. Anyone reading this blog is learning about ideas that are almost entirely absent from mainstream culture. You’re learning things that almost the entire educational edifice doesn’t want you to do (the big exceptions being 1. evolutionary biology departments in universities, 2. masculine sports coaches and some strength and conditioning coaches, and 3. the very rare, independent thinker who happens to work in education and stays under the radar). Taken together, the peer-to-peer information system is roiling the entirety of the developed world. People are learning things from each other that newspaper editors and other mainstream sources would NEVER put in front of readers’s eyes. Independent thinkers are able to put together ideas that wouldn’t be possible otherwise (and the importance of networked independent thinkers, those who form chains of knowledge, I address at the very end).

Martin Gurri is an impressive writer and I have not synthesized all of his insights. He understand, “Eventually the thought dawned on me that information wasn’t just raw material to exploit for analysis, but had a life and power of its own. Information had effects.” What happens if you learn that the dominant narratives are WRONG? In game terms, that means understanding that feminism is a lie (it’s not about equality (I support equality) but about special privileges), or that marriage makes men worse off? You pull one thread, and then a bunch of other threads come loose, and suddenly there is a bunch of bullshit that becomes obvious.

You read the Nassim Taleb books and learn that you are not the only one who is aware of bullshit.

You read evolutionary biology and realize that in today’s climate, monogamy is improbable. You realize that DNA testing should be mandatory at birth. You realize the state, as it presently exists, exists to extract resources from working men in order to give those resources to women.

You realize women are attracted to physical characteristics, which most of society underplays (except when it matters for money: Aquaman is popular among women and gay men).

Even if you don’t read evolutionary biology, you can read the books by Esther Perel, which target women, and realize that monogamy isn’t working. What do you do then? What do you do when you realize that your sweetheart, who pledges her undying love to you, will get bored of you in two or five or at most ten years, then use Facebook to stray?

You realize she loves her smartphone better than she will ever love you. If someone forced her to choose between her phone and you, she’d choose the phone. You realize she’s used her smartphone to send nudes many times.

You start to realize the civilization-enhancing lies that exist, that are woven throughout our lives.

You realize that anonymous advice by cads online is more useful for sex and dating than every movie you’ve ever seen or novel you’ve ever read. Why rely on the lie when you can mainline the truth? You realize that the amount of amateur porn out there reveals what women will happily do for men they’re attracted to, for men they perceive as superior in status to themselves.

You realize schools exist to enrich themselves. They’re still necessary for many people, but you become much more wary of them.

You realize you are just a consumer. You realize marketing is a lie. You realize chicks don’t care about the kind of car you drive, and that you should have spent one-third as much money on the car you now slave at a job you don’t like so you can afford that car. Why are you working the job you don’t even like instead of flirting with women and having sex? Why are you working the job instead of reading a book? You’ve never really asked yourself those questions.

Bloggers, and in general all dabblers in digital communications, are often accused of insulting sacred things: presidents, religion, property rights, even the prerogatives of a democratic majority. They speak when there should be silence, and utter what should never be said. They trample on the sanctities, in the judgment of the great hierarchical institutions which for a century and a half have controlled, from the top down, authoritatively, the content of every public discussion.

This is an excellent reason to write a blog: so you can insult sacred things like feminism and the feminine imperative, while helping other guys improve their game. I would probably not be writing this right not if not for Krauser in particular. Many other guys have written on the game but no one, to my knowledge, has done so at his level of depth. His racism is despicable but his knowledge and ability to convey his knowledge is great.

Game is useful because it has immediate practical applicability. Guys can and should go test it for themselves. No reason to take my word for it, or Krauser’s words, or the words of anyone in the side bar. Go try for yourself.

A third pattern [around the loss of traditional authority] would be the rise of alternative centers of authority. This is a corollary of the loss of monopoly. … Each vital community formed by amateurs interested in an affair becomes a threat to the authority of the institutions.

The best authorities for sleeping with hot chicks are not found in universities or the conventional media. They’re found online. Krauser, Nash, Yohami (if he ever gets a stable web presence) and a bunch of others are better authorities than all of literature, than any professor, than anyone writing for The New York Times or The Guardian. Even parts of Reddit are better for learning to have better sex with hotter chicks than traditional authorities. Alternative “centers” are rising, or have risen. There are other examples of this as well, but seeing as how I’m writing about f**king hot chicks, that’s the one I’ll focus on.

This is a great book for players, wannabe players, and anyone who looks at conventional culture, with its superficial “monogamy,” and thinks, “This shit is busted.” If you are writing online, you are part of the revolution. By historical standards, the revolution has happened fast.

This book, Revolt of the Public, reminds me of something written by the great Nassim Taleb:

It may be a banality that we need others for many things, but we need them far more than we realize, particularly for dignity and respect. Indeed, we have very few historical records of people who have achieved anything extraordinary without such peer validation—but we have the freedom to choose our peers. If we look at the history of ideas, we see schools of thought occasionally forming, producing unusual work unpopular outside the school. You hear about the Stoics, the Academic Skeptics, the Cynics, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, the Essenes, the Surrealists, the Dadaists, the anarchists, the hippies, the fundamentalists. A school allows someone with unusual ideas with the remote possibility of a payoff to find company and create a microcosm from others.

It is almost impossible for someone operating totally alone to achieve as much as a small group working together. Peter Thiel says as much as well in his book about startup companies and the power of groups, Zero to One. The game writers are like a school or a small startup company, producing books, disseminating ideas, testing those ideas in the field, reporting back on which ones work. Early feminists didn’t realize that, in unshackling sex from marriage and reproduction, they also created the conditions necessary for pickup artists. Now, modern feminists are miserable harpies, living in a world their mothers and grandmothers created, failing to realize that, when high-status men refuse to marry, the meaning of their own lives would disappear. If feminists realized this, they’d be unhappy about it. Feminists don’t understand that normal women crave families and family life, yet feminists have succeeded in creating the legal and social conditions necessary to DESTROY family life.

Men have learned not to invest financially in women. A man should invest in himself, in his skills, in his gym, in his food (vegetables, nuts), in his nice boots, and NOT pour money into women, which is a way of turning off most modern women.

A man today with a $400 used laptop, discipline, and an Internet connection can change the world.

You are an important part of the game network and that is why I encourage you to write about your pickup and game adventures. You may disagree with me and I may disagree at times with you, but you are part of an underground movement that is important.

I am going to re-read this book.

Advertisements

“Sex Clubs, Non-Monogamy, and Game:” The free ebook

The free ebook Sex Clubs, Non-Monogamy, and Game is done and it is available for download as:

* A .mobi file for Kindle readers.
* A .epub file for other readers.
* A PDF, for anyone who wants to print a copy or read in some other manner.

paper version is here, on Amazon: I suspect most of you will read on Kindles, iPads, etc., but an easy paperback option is now available. I have also put up an Amazon ebook download, although I haven’t been able to get Amazon to give me a $0.00 price on the ebook version; Amazon will only offer $0.99, so that may have to remain.

The cover is pretty crappy and I made it in five minutes. If you’re a graphic person and want to make a better one, shoot it over and I’ll replace the cover in future editions. Magnum and others have suggested that I pay a couple hundred bucks to get an online freelancer to do a better cover, and they are probably right, but I’m just not willing to go that far for a free book that I’ve already spent way too much time on.

Please get in touch if you have ideas or responses. I view this book as a potential work in progress. I don’t think I’ve covered every aspect of the field, but I haven’t read any books that are as detailed and thorough as this one. The copy I’m releasing today, on 3 January 2019, can be seen as a refined beta release; if I get good feedback, I will put out another version in response to that feedback.

The book is being released under a Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution license. That means anyone can redistribute the book or edit it, provided that your version attributes the original to “The Red Quest.” I have gone back and forth about whether I should make this book free or paid. A free book is more easily available, but most people value a thing at its price: “free” things are usually worth what’s paid for them. I hope Sex Clubs, Non-Monogamy, and Game is the exception to that principle.

There are other free books discussing the floating around, with The Book of Pook being the best-known. I just read it. I hope Sex Clubs, Non-Monogamy, and Game will be passed from player to player, without restriction, and that guys learn to be guys and learn how to live their possible lives. Please email copies of the book to whoever you think may want to read it.

The book is dedicated to Nash and to everyone who has ever taught me about the game. The first version of the book was about 31,000 words, and this version is about 42,000 words, the majority of those words in response to initial reader feedback.

The Tom Torero lay report book, “Below the Belt”

If you’re interested in Torero and have never read his books, start with Daygame, or his textbook (I can’t find the name of it now). Below the Belt is a series of lay reports and it’s fine: it does what it promises for guys who jones for more lay reports. At least a few of these have appeared in other forms, including some in Daygame. It’s strange for me to read them, as I’ve read some of Nick Krauser’s books, and I know enough about the background between Krauser and Torero to find Krauser’s absense notable. There seems to be some narcissism of small differences between them… they are similar in so many ways… yet some obscure-seeming beef separates them. Like Nabakov and Edmund Wilson having a falling out. I find whitewashing the past like that to be odd, regardless of what precipitated the split. I would rather learn about the tensions between them. There is a deep literature on creative partnerships:

In his book “Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work,” from 2001, the sociologist Michael P. Farrell made a study of close creative groups—the French Impressionists, Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries. “Most of the fragile insights that laid the foundation of a new vision emerged not when the whole group was together, and not when members worked alone, but when they collaborated and responded to one another in pairs,” he wrote. It took Monet and Renoir, working side by side in the summer of 1869, to develop the style that became Impressionism; during the six-year collaboration that gave rise to Cubism, Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque would often sign only the backs of their canvases, to obscure which of them had completed each painting. (“A canvas was not finished until both of us felt it was,” Picasso later recalled.) In “Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs,” the writer Joshua Wolf Shenk quotes from a 1971 interview in which John Lennon explained that either he or Paul McCartney would “write the good bit, the part that was easy, like ‘I read the news today’ or whatever it was.” One of them would get stuck until the other arrived—then, Lennon said, “I would sing half, and he would be inspired to write the next bit and vice versa.” Everyone falls into creative ruts, but two people rarely do so at the same time.

It would seem that Torero has had several of these partnerships, with Antony (who is mentioned) and Krauser (who is not). If you want the negative take, Nash has you covered. I don’t have a strong view on the issue. I’m also in a different world, as my entire life doesn’t revolve around seduction or writing books and other products teaching it.

The Torero lay reports are valuable, and I don’t have a lot ot add to their value. Game reports reinforce how flakey and random girls are. A girl can be DTF one night, then ghost the next. Most guys don’t appreciate the randomness of girls, and more guys should.

Overall these stories seem like they match my own experiences, and that is nice. If we’re all having somewhat similar outcomes, then the system mostly works, probably mostly for the reasons worked out by guys who know evolutionary biology and create game systems that incorporate the results from it.

I like this:

In this book I’ve also made a conscious decision to document the darker sides of the player lifestyle, from rejections and dry spells to runaway egos and fuck ups. If you want to be a member of the Secret Society and get lots of casual sex without the romance then there’s a price to be paid, even if it’s not initially obvious.

Some guys writing about the game are either very young (in which case their life is all about the game and banging new chicks, as it should be) or underestimate the dark sides. I think there are still darker sides than we get here. The ego protection mechanism is still at work.

I vehemently disagree with this:

A long-term PUA has to be selfish, by default. He doesn’t settle down in one place or with one girl. He goes for what he wants and perfects how to get it. Learning the pickup skill set is exactly that: improving your frame, standing up for what you want, not being the Nice Guy doormat. The same techniques that work with gaming girls (breaking rapport, qualifying, leading, dominance) spill over into all your interactions. It’s not only girls that start calling you an asshole and a jerk.

A long-term PUA does NOT have to be selfish. Good PUAs create “win-win” situations. Chicks want to be seduced and wish more guys would learn how to seduce them well. A guy who seduces a chick is not being selfish. Especially if he does not hide that he’s a casual sex guy. A guy who sets the relationship frame appropriately is creating value in the world. A guy who pretends he might marry a girl and then jilts her… he is being a selfish asshole. I think chicks can sense that I have a generative spirit, despite my non-monogamous ways, and I think that helps me out. “Generative spirit” does not mean I’m a “nice guy” (I’m not), but I also try to make the world a better place. I genuinely think game does make the world better, because it teaches guys the skills chicks already wish guys had. I’ve been told that it’s nice to be asked out in public, by a guy, in person. Even chicks who say “no” or “I have a boyfriend” have said that. There is a problem with masculinity in the United States and maybe the world in general. Game is part of the solution (a topic for another post, maybe, although it will be a rambling, philosophical one).

“A long-term PUA has to be selfish, by default” tells us about the writer, not about the world. It is true that chicks will project eventual monogamy and domesticity onto the player. I have had that happen (although some of my interests in group sex retard the chick’s projections).

“The loud, cocky confidence which attracts girls is abrasive when you’re dealing with it 24/7.” Yes. I have met these guys.

She said that I was the third guy she’d ever had sex with (the first two were long term relationships) and the first guy who’d not bought her expensive shit. She also said she liked the direct way I stopped her on the street and that she knew I wanted to fuck from the start. Good feedback for a player, I’d felt my frame improving since daygaming Russians.

The thing about gifts is very similar to what Ms. Slav told me. That said, if you are trying to keep a girl around for the medium term, gifts can help a guy pass comfort tests. There are no comfort tests mentioned in this book, or if there were I missed them. A girl only loves gifts if she’s earned them. If she hasn’t earned them, a gift is a demonstration of lower value. Guys mistakenly see chicks go ape shit for gifts in movies and TV shows but forget that movies and TV shows are fiction, often catering to women who love the idea of an already high value guy giving them gifts.

If you ask a chick, “Do you like gifts from guys?” they say, “YES,” because they are imagining it coming from a hot, high-value guy. In which case a gift is very good. From a low-value guy, it can be okay but kind of icky.

After the lay we reclined on the bed and I asked her my typical post-sex questions (you’ve got a short window after the notch to get a girl to spit some truth from her hindbrain before her forebrain guards take over again).

I’ve also seen this. Right after sex is the best time to talk to chicks.

A weakness of writing books of just lay reports (like my first book in particular) is that once you work out how to have casual sex, the infield reports start to sound robotic as you get less and less learning points and levelling up in each one. The puzzle’s been solved, the hustle has become consistent, so why keep writing? Is sex just sex at the end of the day?

I have been thinking about more stories from my past, but many of them are not that interesting. Particularly the girls I’ve met online.

Some chicks are also attracted to players:

Finally she found out about my double life and my Tom Torero brand (I’m not sure how, but who cares). After a little bit of coldness she was increasingly turned on by the idea of me fucking lots of other girls for my job.

In a later story, Torero talks about dating a woman for a year and breaking up with her because she wanted a deeper relationship and perhaps a family. I would’ve liked to hear more about this. That may fit my own pattern of a larger number of short and medium term relationships, as opposed to a large number of one-night stands and ultra-causal encounters. If I like a chick, I try to keep her on rotation (non-monogamy can help with that). A guy who loves the one-night stand ought to do the one-night stands, and some girls want ultra-casual sex or decide they don’t like the guy after he takes her for a ride.

In my experience, it’s also rare for the first-time sex to be the best sex, so there is that aspect for me. Usually it takes three to five sessions to hit the peaks. Many guys who Yohami would call “bottom guys” think of consensual non-monogamy as a beta move that allows the girl to get strange dick while the guy sits at home playing video games. For guys with options, and guys who like a chick to stick around, the big problem can be retaining her in the medium term.

Should you read it? I dunno. If you want more lay reports, then sure. If you’ve already read a bunch of them, as I have, then I don’t know if it’s that useful. They do get repetitive, and that sense of repetition may be part of what’s making me thinking about the next part of my life. I have a kind of sense of having seen it, done it, it’s not as satisfying as it was, what’s next?

Non-monogamy and the game: book update

The book about non-monogamy, sex clubs, and game is now about 41,000 words, up from about 31,000 words in the first completed draft. Three or four guys have read it and returned it with feedback… if you are one of those guys, thank you. I still don’t have a good title for it and may default to “Sex clubs and non-monogamy for players” or a similar title. The title may be too direct but the book is trying to demystify things, much as players demystify the dating market.

I’ve been looking around for anyone who wants to make a cover image. One beta reader suggested I put the cover image and layout jobs on Upwork. I’m reluctant to plow money into a free book, even small amounts of money, but maybe that is worth doing.

I’m going to publish the book under the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution license. Anyone who wants to distribute the book can do so as long as they acknowledge this website and “The Red Quest” as the original writer. Because I’m likely to quit the community at some point, I want to give the book a license that will make it easy to copy and remix in perpetuity. Maybe someone will make a nice physical edition of it.

Right now, I still haven’t found anyone who has written on this subject at the level of depth and knowledge that I’m writing at. I’m sure some guys have discovered what I’ve discovered through trial and error, but it’s exciting to be the first person to discuss a topic in detail.

Finishing the book and making comprehensive edits has sucked up far too much time, but at this point I’m determined to see it through and produce a book that is novel, useful, and accurate.

I also think monogamy is dying. In response to some observations by the beta readers, I have added this to the conclusion:

In my view, monogamy is also failing due to the prevalence of Facebook, smartphones, and other technologies that make it far too easy to surreptitiously hook up with exes. When a woman has been with a man for a couple years and is going through a tough or boring period with him, she can easily start a Facebook chat with her old boyfriends or crushes. The very low friction required for women to begin an affair today is corrosive to conventional relationships. For most women, social media is like crack, and most women lack the willpower to say “no.” This world of easy sex-on-demand is revealing all the cracks in the facade of monogamy. Social media is revealing the many problems with elite institutions, a topic dealt with in The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri—a book players should read, though it is not directly applicable to the game.

Social media weakens existing relationships, increases non-monogamy, and also makes it easier to discover cheating. In this environment, consensual non-monogamy makes more sense than ever. Many guys fantasize about a monogamous relationship with a woman, but they fail to realize that few women will remain in a long-term monogamous relationship with them. We’re only just now coming to terms with the way social media tears apart relationships of all kinds. But as old relationships and bonds dissolve, new ones will take their place. What will those look like? What should those look like?

As we learn about why and how monogamy doesn’t work, we also have to ask what comes after monogamy. This book is a partial answer to that question, although I haven’t framed it as such until now.

By now, people are recognizing that social media is changing almost everything about social and political dynamics in our society. How thoroughly these dynamics have been and are being changed is still not widely appreciated. When a woman has infinite, on-demand access to her exes at will, monogamy is not going to endure. Even many players haven’t fully understood these implications yet.

But don’t fear, the bulk of the book is “how to” and “how to do this” rather than being jerk-off philosophizing.

It’s conceivable I’ll publish the book within a week or two of today, depending on how quickly other beta readers get back to me. I thought the book would be shorter than it has been and I thought it would take me less time to put it together, but many questions and observations have revealed missing segments that I’ve been trying to fill. I can’t make any timeline promises because this is a totally peer-to-peer process. I’m not going to charge for the book and am not paying anyone reading it, so paid work takes priority.

“Untrue,” on female lust and infidelity, for players

I previously mentioned the Wednesday Martin book, Untrue: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free, and now that I have read it, I can say that, if it were framed slightly differently and written by a Red-Pill guy, it would be denounced, but since it’s written by a woman and framed as You-Go-Girl, it can be safely admired by mainstream writers

Guys are well-served by reading Untrue because most guys don’t understand women and don’t understand the dual mating strategies deployed by women. Most women want to present a facade of female chastity and loyalty to most men most of the time. Sometimes men will see cracks in this facade, as when the woman chooses an obvious “bad boy” for short-term mating, but for the most part the majority of men remain blissfully clueless. The problem for women occurs primarily when a woman like Wednesday Martin reviews the literature and intervies a bunch of chicks about what women really want in bed. The average guy is too busy with video games and has too short an attention span to learn what women want. He doesn’t read and doesn’t lift and is then surprised when his sex life isn’t very good.

Martin says “Women lust and women cheat. And it sets us aflame.” Most women don’t exactly want guys to know this, so it’s interesting to see a female writer foreground it. For a guy, it’s useful to figure out what makes women lust after him, cheat with him instead of on him. She may say “no” to you, but she is very likely not saying “no” to everyone. It took me a very long time to realize that pretty much every hot chick is having sex with somebody. So I might as well give it a shot and see if I can make him, me.

But when woman after woman in a committed relationship tells you she is unusual, sexually speaking—because she wants more sex than she’s supposed to, because she feels compelled or tempted to stray—you can’t shake the feeling that in matters of female desire, sexuality, and monogamy in particular, “unusual” is normal, and “normal” desperately needs to be redefined.

A guy who fancies monogamy needs to dwell on this passage. What women present, and what men what to believe about women, is different from what woman do and want.

“I entertained crushes on wholly inappropriate objects—men who were married, or too young for me, or too old for me.” This is why it’s worth taking the shot. You never know if you don’t ask. “Just ask” has been key to many of my own successes in life. So has the thing I mentioned, knowing that every hot chick is likely f**king some guy. But she only f**ks guys who ask.

It helps that Martin is married to a titanically rich guy, a fact she doesn’t emphasize in her book. When you don’t have to make real money, you have the time and space to write books for sport.

Martin is also a non-monogamy person. “To state the obvious, non-monogamy is exercising a pull on us because monogamy isn’t working for everyone.” A lot of guys don’t want to admit or acknowledge this. I want to, and that led to my much-hated piece, “Open or poly relationships from the superior position or inferior position.” The hate comes from guys who imagine doing open-relationships from the inferior position. To a guy in the condition of female-scarcity, non-monogamy is terrifying. To a guy who has the problem of medium- and long-term retention, this strategy is intriguing.

In 2013, some new data emerged from the GSS: women were roughly 40 percent more likely to be cheating on their husbands than they had been in 1990. Meanwhile, their husbands’ rates of infidelity hadn’t budged. The finding wasn’t unique, and it wasn’t such a new development, it turned out.

The lesson for men is simple: don’t marry. Marriage is a setup for the man to be cheated on and then to be forced at gunpoint by the state to subsidize her. Why would any man sign up for that, willingly?

On male attention from a committed man, one woman says, “He just doesn’t have a lot of credibility. You’re all he’s got. He doesn’t see you the way you want to be seen! But admiration from someone you know less well, or from a stranger—that has an impact!” When a guy marries a woman, his bargaining position weakens and hers strengthens. Don’t get married.

Like Chivers and Meana, Alicia Walker—an assistant professor of sociology at Missouri State University—does research that forces us to rethink not only female sexuality but our most cherished and basic beliefs about what women do and are, what they want and how they behave, and the role that context plays. In her extensive review of the sociological and psychological studies on female infidelity, and her own study of forty-six female users of the Ashley Madison website before its infamous hack and shutdown in 2015 (“Life is short. Have an affair,” the company’s tagline suggested), Walker explodes several of our most dearly held notions about female infidelity: that women cheat only when they are unhappy in their marriages; that unlike men, they seek emotional connection, not sexual gratification, and from affairs.

I know this is just more of the usual, but really, don’t get married.

Martin misses something important here: “polyamory practitioners I met at panels and social events for the poly community, that women, not men, were leading that movement. It tends to be women, I was repeatedly informed, who are telling their partners that they want open relationships and marriages.” Among guys doing poly, the vast majority are low-status guys who are okay sharing one woman because they figure they can’t retain women otherwise.

High-status guys doing open relationships of various kinds often eschew the term “polyamory” because of its association with ugly, deranged, new-age fat chicks. For high-status guys, it’s not necessary to use “polyamory” as a label most of the time. Plus, high-status guys don’t want to be outed as poly, which, for most guys, comes off as low status. High-status guys are better off underground, which is where they (we) stay. Smart guys also don’t formally marry non-monogamous partners.

There are other very Red Pill statements. Women are the real group killing marriage. It is funny to me, thinking about all the 33-year-old women who can’t get a guy to marry them, and they are surprised that most “eligible” men prefer the 25-year-olds they were a few years prior, who are happy to play around and not demand anything from guys apart from c**k. It is true that guys eventually hit our own “wall.” It is also true that having children is one of the most meaningful experiences a human can have. But guys hit the wall later and smart guys realize they can have kids without the legal baggage of modern marriage.

Most guys should get out of their video game world and spend more time reading books, lifting, and interacting with humans in the real world. But they won’t. Less competition for those of us who like f**king, but the video-game life cannot be good for the many guys living it.

Ecosystems and clubs

Haven’t been able to find enough appealing books to read lately… I’ve been on a run of badly written SF novels that I don’t complete because I feel like I’ve already read them and, worse, the writer is a worse writer than I am. So I picked up the Nick Krauser book A Deplorable Cad. This section, about “Beckster” (Robert Beck) reminds me of something similar but adjacent to what I do:

He’d read the old Alt-Seduction forum then go out in-field to nightclubs to try it out. After two years of what were, by his own admission, “hard work and brutal lack of success,” he cracked it and became a good player . . .

His major ruse was to set himself up as a club promoter and then go out in the street, handing out cards to hot girls and getting their numbers.

From there, Beckster would invite chicks to the club. The chicks “would experience Rob as the king of the club who knew everybody and was treated with respect by the staff,” because club promoters can get paid to bring in chicks. He’d then find other players and wannabe players and get them to bring in chicks. On top of that, “Rob put yet another layer . . . which not only made his pulling easier but also greatly enhanced the perception of his cold-approach pick-up skills in front of the students who’d paid him a fortune in coaching fees.” By being the boss of a bunch of chicks, other chicks would see him as high value… then he’d go around to pick up the other chicks in the club. Then multiple chicks would “all compete against each other to vie for his attention.”

An interesting strategy. I admire it, though it’s not for me because I dislike clubs. The only other person I’ve read who seems to have a good read on clubs is Good Looking Loser, who writes “An Introduction and Major Misconception about Party ‘Club’ Game (The Scene – Hollywood, USA):”

Groups of people meet at a designated house to “mingle”, drink and do drugs – 1 or 2 hours before going to a nightclub. (pre-party)

These groups of people take as few cars/taxis (or limousines) to go to a nightclub where they have ALREADY BEEN PUT ON A VIP/GUEST LIST by the nightclub promoter that they ALREADY KNOW. (enter club)

They get in for free, have a COMPLIMENTARY table and access to a significant amount of FREE alcohol that their promotor has reversed for them. (club)

At some point in the night, usually just after that the alcohol runs out and/or girls dance for 90 minutes, the group will leave to a PRE-PLANNED AFTER-PARTY which is usually, but not always, at the pre-party house. (exit club)

Most solo guys or small groups of guys are never going to break off one of those chicks. The marketing job of the club, however, is to convince guys that, with enough money spent, that might happen. I personally would prefer honest prostitution to this kind of slight-of-hand, but there must be enough guys to bite the bait to keep the industry going.

Krauser does not like this form of game either:

This is known as Entourage Game, and Beckster invented the modern version of it. It’s pretty much the opposite of what I do. He builds an elaborate structure based on many moving parts that elevates him to a position of situational high status in an environment where girls go to party. I roam solo on city streets picking off girls who know nothing except what I convey in one-to-one conversation.

Krauser also has another friend, Mick, who is also not like me:

He enjoys chatting to strangers for the sake of it, whereas I hate it. He’ll start up conversations no matter where he is – to a supermarket cashier, a barber, his car mechanic. In contrast, I’ll say the minimum necessary to be polite. That’s how his style developed, and it makes him excellent at bar game because he doesn’t view all of this chat as work.

I am somewhere between Krauser and Mick, but I view most random chat as closer to work than pleasure, which is why I don’t much like working the bars. I have done it before, sometimes somewhat successfully, but usually in semi-warm atmospheres (e.g. after a work conference meet up, that kind of thing).

I also don’t like normal clubs, but I am somewhat like Beckster in that I discovered, or was initiated into, a kind of workaround, in my case through sex parties and sex clubs, where everyone has been pre-filtered for interest. The upsides I have written about quite a bit. There are some downsides to what I do:

  1. Many people, even when they know intellectually that they are not monogamous, do not want to see their friend or partner banging another person.
  2. If a guy is hunting the hottest girls, the ones who are 8+, he is not likely to find them. I have seen some, but they are rare and in high demand. If a guy brings high 7s and 8+ girls, however, he will be the king of his local scene (I have played this game very successfully).
  3. A guy still needs to find a compatible chick. This version of lifestyle or ecosystem must be layered onto existing game for it to work.
  4. A guy will be evaluated very directly based on his body and sex skills. If either are lacking, everyone will know it because everyone will see the guy nude and fucking. Because (almost) everyone gets naked and has sex at these clubs and parties, I have an unusual amount of experience in evaluating how chicks look clothed and unclothed. Many chicks who seem one way clothed turn out another way when not.
  5. Doing it well takes some amount of work. There are no shortcuts.

The main advantage to what I do is volume, sustainability, and of course many people have group sex fantasies… I just happen to live them out. Consensual non-monogamy also helps me retain chicks who would otherwise want to know, “Where is this going?” Overall, I find these trade-offs to be worthwhile. What I am doing is not totally unlike what Beckster is/was doing.

Another advantage: I am satisfying many chicks’ fantasies, which they will never satisfy on their because they are chicks and most chicks need to be led most of the time. Most chicks are not self-motivated or self-starters, so they need a guy to activate their sex drives.

Another thing, neither good nor bad: I tend to get and retain sexually adventurous chicks. For guys who have a thing for inexperienced chicks or virgins, he will not find them at the sex clubs. Note that many sexually adventurous chicks still present as “classy,” if you like that sort of thing. And many chicks who present as trashy are still hard to get in bed, based on my experiences. Just like guys who dislike game say that game guys are only getting “bad” or “damaged” girls, guys who think that every sexually adventurous girl looks like a gutter rat will be surprised.

I like reading about other guys’s systems. I actually draw from a couple ecosystems (I have not written about everything I do), so I am somewhat unlike the game guys who hit new cities and begin cold approaching. But the Krauser and Tom Torero books are the most complete descriptions of game I have ever read, rivaled only by some of the original Neil Strauss and Mystery books. It is surprising to me that no one else has produced comparably detailed works. Maybe that is because writing a book takes a lot of energy for little reward, apart from the ego reward. The majority of guys out there learning how to be a player would be well-served to quit hunting for kernels of utility online and read the Krauser books.

I feel like I am still learning from them. I don’t do a lot of cold-approach daygame, so they are not likely as “useful” to me as they will be to other guys who are learning to chase tail, but they are well-written and informative. The book written by an obvious expert in his field is often interesting to me, even if I am not directly in the field. I see the world differently after I read them. I like Nassim Taleb, even though I don’t wish to be a Wall Street trader, as he was. The Krauser and Torero books are written by experts. The most annoying part of the Krauser books is the fact that they are not readily available digitally. It seems that they can be found online, but I would prefer to just click the Amazon button and be done with it. Life is too valuable to be scrimping over a $20 book. Most of the Torero books seem to be on Amazon Kindle, which I appreciate.

If there are comparable books that I’m missing, please let me know in the comments. If you are an experienced game guy, think about writing a book.

One other thing I forgot to add: Krauser says, “This was a period when I was getting to meet all the ‘name’ PUAs in London and while they all had something I could learn from, I was struck by how strange they all were. It was like a little boy’s club. Our house of cads in Hampstead looked sane in comparison.” I’m guessing that I come off as more normal than most hard-core PUAs, albeit cerebral or nerdy if I let those parts of myself peak out. When I find a pretty girl who likes to read and isn’t a twit, I get very excited. Most pretty girls who like to read are looking for a guy who isn’t a stereotypical nerd but who isn’t a frat-boy jock. Pretty girls who like to read have dating problems similar to mine. So when we find each other, it can be beautiful. I am much smarter than most good-looking gym guys (I am not so good looking but I do all right… certainly not good looking enough to make the game easy) and I am much better looking than most nerdy readers, programmers, or engineers. Ms. Slav and I connect well because she’s an extremely pretty girl who is also smart, and so her and I match immediately.

I can do well with basic chicks age 25+ who are starting to think about longer-term things, but if they are kind of dumb I get tired of them after a couple months of sex. They often become too much like having another kid around, which I don’t need in supposedly adult women.

Overall, I think I am more normal than the hardest-core PUAs, but considerably less normal than the average person.

Skin in the game, marriage, The Red Pill

The new Nassim Nicholas Taleb book Skin in the Game explains why men shouldn’t marry. Men have a lot of skin in the marriage game and women have none.

Taleb gives many examples of asymmetric risk and situations where people have skin in the game. His knowledge of skin in the game comes from his own experiences. “In an option, one person (the buyer of the option), contractually has the upside (future gains), the other (the seller) has a liability for the downside (future losses), for a pre-agreed price. Just as in an insurance contract, where risk is transferred for a fee. Any meaningful disruption of such symmetry—with transfer of liabilities—invariably leads to an explosive situation, as we saw with the economic risis of 2008.”

You know where most women have no skin in the game, leading to an explosive situation?

Marriage.

When a woman gets and stays married for some period of time, she has access to half her husband’s financial resources (assuming that he makes more than her). If the couple buy property together, she will likely keep the property in a divorce. If they have children, in most states, she will get automatic custody, along with child support, possibly until the child is 22.

A woman who marries gets a ton of optionality.

What does the man get?

Sex? No. That’s at the woman’s discretion. And guys are much better off learning game than attempting to mate in captivity. Most women’s erotic attraction to a man declines rapidly with cohabitation.

Money? Maybe, if he marries a woman who is a substantially higher earner than him, but that is rare.

Fidelity? If he is lucky, maybe. He may not be so lucky. You cannot negotiate genuine desire.

Love? He doesn’t need a contract with the state to verify his love.

Now you know why older women may be eager to marry: she is financially incented to.

The man doesn’t get money, unless his wife makes more than he does. But if she quits or down-shifts her job, that will go away.

Taleb says, “asymmetry in risk bearing leads to imbalances and, potentially, to systemic ruin.” When a man marries, he is risking systemic ruin for… what? I have no idea and have never seen a good answer to this question.

Taleb says, “The notion of belief without sacrifice, which is tangible proof, is new in history.” Marriage is, for a woman, “belief without sacrifice.” She sacrifices nothing and asks the man to potentially sacrifice everything, up to and including his freedom. If the man cannot pay child support, he will likely be jailed, thus ensuring that he will lose his job and fall further behind. This is called “being a deadbeat dad.”

He may have children, but the woman and the medical system will resist DNA testing to make sure they are his (I had mine tested: they are mine).

Marriage can only barely, kind of make sense for a man who marries a woman who makes substantially more money than he does. Most women, of course, do not want to marry a man who makes less than they do, so that is a rare situation.

Women wonder why guys aren’t eager to get married without asking themselves, “What does the guy get out of marriage?” When marriage was the only legitimate way to access sex, and when the entire social structure revolved around marriage, marriage made sense. That period ended with the Sexual Revolution, the baby boomers, and second-wave feminism. Smart men today do not marry, which is all asymmetric risk for them. The woman has no skin in the game and the man has a lot. Don’t fall for this trap. Read Taleb. Read more real books and less Internet.

Don’t trust me either. Go talk to your divorced friends, or your dad’s divorced friends. Their testimony is ten times more valuable than what I have to say. Follow the links to Real World Divorce. Today, men who are foolish enough to sign up for marriage without understanding the legal risk they are taking almost deserve what they get. They are being grifted by women and by the larger society. Don’t be a mark. Be Fat Tony (but not fat).