“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. But you should not trust many of Taleb’s specific claims; he likes calling so many other people charlatans that you begin to wonder about his own status.

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 (personal experience speaking here).

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).

‘Cheap Sex,’ our lives, our politics

Like I said, this book is good to read. In the article, the best sentence is, “The fuckboy lifestyle — in which a man can be basically worthless yet sexually successful — was simply not viable.” Absolutely. And men are still adjusting, psychologically, emotionally, and culturally to this shift. Women, especially young hot ones, now value sexual and sensual pleasure more than world-building and income. Every guy has seen some hot chick not just fuck but obsess over a degenerate guy. Then the guy thinks, “What is the degenerate doing that I’m not?”

Guys who follow that thought far enough find game.

The author neglects to make clear that sex is “cheap” for the top 20 or 25% of guys. It’s still very expensive for all the other guys. Those other guys are forced to watch porn, be celibate, cling futilely to their one-itis, become extremely wealthy, become famous, or learn game. In my view only that last one is practical for the vast majority of men.

When a man truly realizes sex is cheap, everything about him changes. “Cheap sex” is another phrase for “abundance mentality.” But when a man has abundance, it’s not just a mentality. It’s his life.

How many women are open to sex parties and partner swapping? [intermediate/advanced]

This is intermediate and advanced shit that beginners shouldn’t be reading. If you don’t have regular girls on rotation, go read something else.

Nash and I have a dialogue about women’s propensities towards group sex in the comments section of Women want to follow your lead: a story about a woman presenting two ways:

So you think 75% of women are open to sex parties and partner swapping?

Wow.

I’m tempted to argue… But I trust your POV on this topic. And, I am likely one of the guys that “doesn’t get it” in this regard.

And I know every girl likes to be choked. Like 98%. And I’ve seen guys surprised by that, when it’s totally normal for me.

Is it 75%? I don’t know and it’s hard to say. If you did a survey, I bet only something like 10% of women be willing to say that they’re open to group sex. I’ve said this before, but of the women I’ve propositioned for a club or party, about 25% have been eager and excited, about 50% uncertain, and about 25% have had been a hard “no,” which usually precipitates a breakup because I’m not willing to be monogamous again.

But that’s about 75% of the women I’ve already been sleeping with long enough to ask the question… so it’s not a random sample at all. Chicks who are very reserved, very sex negative, very interested in monogamy, and very unwilling to have pretty quick sex don’t like me and I don’t like them. They are out there, but you never read about them in pickup writing because they don’t respond to street come-ons and online they’re very slow-moving. I filter out prudes, hard, though this is not the same thing as filtering out girls who might take some time.

So I don’t know how many women are open to sex parties. I’m 100% sure, however, that far more women are interested than would admit it in public or to their boyfriends. It’s also true that, in my experience, many women who initially say no will come around to it. First they say no. Then they agree to go to one but do not want to touch or play with others. And then it slowly amps up. All players are familiar with this. So is any guy who ever dated a girl in high school or just an experienced girl. Most chicks won’t jump straight into things and need some leadup and then some processing time.

Women also like to follow. So a lot of women who have already invested in a guy and who are used to the guy leading will be open. The most common reaction I’ve gotten to women who’ve gone with me to a club or party is, “I never thought I would do that!!!! OMG!!!!” Some experience sub drop the next day, so care and reassurance is important. Most chicks have no internal feeling gauges so they need a man to reassure and lead them.

And of course most women who go to sex clubs will then lie to their future boyfriends and husbands about them, for the obvious reasons.

I’m guessing that most women who are willing to be picked up on the street would also be willing to go to a sex club.

Then Nash said,

I can say that most women I’ve picked up HAVE been to a strip club. Not the same as a sex club, but it’s true. And about 50% of girls I’ve asked are very clear what kind of girl they would pick out at a strip club (that’s a fun question to ask a girl).

>> Hard to say. Probably if you did a survey, only 10% of women be willing to say that they’re open.

Mostly… we never care what women say when asked directly. Particularly in a group/public setting. It’s more about if you get them in the right mood… what might they say.

A woman’s “truth” changes like the wind. You have to catch her in the right moment to know her potential.

>> I’m 100% sure, however, that far more women are interested than would admit it in public or to their boyfriends.

Another game I play sometimes with women is to talk about 3somes, but turn the question around. I’ll tell a girl that most guys have fantasized about being w/ two girls. And then I say, “but most guys don’t think much about a girl being w/ two guys.” And then, I’ll ask if she’s ever fantasized about that. Again, hard to say if the answer you get is real…

I’m not into “MMF” 3somes myself, but it’s a way to get into the grit of a girls sexual mind.

But this leads me to a similar place in our understanding of women’s minds/sexualitites… would she like to be DP’d? Would she go to a sex club… and swap partners? The truth is guaranteed to be that this is all more common than most men would expect.

But I think your “women like to follow” comment is very much on point. Without a man to work out logistics and to push for it… the super kinky stuff is less likely to happen.

You can see why I’m excerpting all of this. And that strip club question is good. I’m not a strip club person and think I’ve only gone with women in tow. Personally, I’ve found strip clubs expensive and not very gratifying, so once I got into the BDSM and adjacent worlds I pretty much stopped going. Lots of strippers go to sex positive events anyway, so I can meet them outside of work.

I personally would prefer FMF threesomes, like pretty much every straight guy, but I have a male “threesome buddy” (sounds gay but isn’t) who I tend to trade chicks with. When I have a chick who wants a threesome with two dudes, I get my buddy to meet up and if everyone clicks we do it.

He does the same w/ me.

It’s a pretty baller move because most chicks are too scared to accomplish any of the things they really want. So they find a guy who makes it happen for them and they’re amazed.

But my real goal is a kind of “trade:” MFM for FMF. It doesn’t always work. Lots of chicks back out. It helps to say, “Which of your female friends do you most want to have a threesome with?” A guy can’t make it an iron-clad contract because chicks don’t think that way. But a guy can do a trade-off thing. It’s also possible to pickup a third chick together (I’ve done that).

Most of these things require deft male leadership. The guy can’t be too pushy but he also can’t be a wet noodle. Most chicks need to ease into kinky stuff. Not all. I’ve also seen chicks just go into feral beast mode the moment they’re set loose in a swingers club. A typical girl needs some comfort and slow escalation.

It’s not that different from pickup or online dating… some women will just do a one-drink-then-fuck, or a same-day lay, but typically they need some comfort as well as cocky-funny. It pays to play to the typical experience unless a given woman demonstrates otherwise via her words or her extreme compliance.

There is also the question of why do this at all? I do it firstly because I think group sex is hot. Secondly I’m not interested in monogamy, probably ever, and I don’t think it’s practical for most people today. Most people who proclaim that they’re monogamists are actually serial monogamists / serial polygamists, so their “monogamy” is only time-limited anyway. Blackdragon blog covers this in more detail, and thank you to however posted a link to it. Thirdly, lots of chicks really dig it too and they fantasize about it, so let’s be cool and make it happen.

Mostly I do it for me. Most people lie about their sex lives and desires. They get frustrated with their partners because their partners are lying too. In my view this short-circuits most of the lying.

If you want to know why people are tuned to lie to themselves, there is a new book, The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life, covering it. I’m starting to recommend it to chicks, but of course most chicks are too addled by their smartphones to read an entire book.

In short, most women are probably open to some kind of group sex experience but they need a guy to lead to make it happen. Kinda like everything else in intersex dynamics.

The best books for learning game

On The Red Pill someone asked about the best books for learning game: I still think guys should start with Neil Strauss, The Game and Rules of the Game. They are somewhat dated and anything about “negging” should be ignored, at least at first. “Negging” is really push-pull or what Torero and Krauser call “fractionation.” The rest of the book is still more right than not, and Neil Strauss is a very good writer. Both books are also “mainstream” enough to give to your friends, even as a joke. Neil Strauss describes how he read evolutionary biology books that reinforced and supported the game he was learning.

For clueless guys and even some intermediate guys, it’s helpful to understand biological programming. Whether you want it to or not, biology drives us more than culture. Women don’t have that much choice in who they are attracted to, just like guys don’t. Guys can try to force themselves to be attracted to older or fatter women, but it just doesn’t work, right? The number of 45 or 50 year old women a guy will be attracted to is very close to zero, unless the guy himself is aged 60+. A 22-year-old hottie will make any guy look twice, especially over his 45-year-old wife. Maybe he’ll overcome his primal urge through conscious effort but it will remain. Girls are the same way but their criteria is not exactly the same for reasons that make sense from an evolutionary biology perspective.

I actually don’t think it matters very much where you start with game books, as long as you read a lot and more importantly immediately try to apply what you read. Too much reading in the absence of practice is masturbatory.

What else a guy should read depends on where he starts and what sticking points he has. Guys in high school and college will have different needs and ecosystems than guys who are 30 or 40 or 40+. If guys in high school and college try London daygame cold approach or Strauss-Mystery Method they are going to become weird outcasts quickly. They need more friendship, social circle, and connection techniques. Some techniques and mindsets described by London daygame and Strauss-Mystery are still applicable, but “cold approach” is for big, anonymous cities.

“Sticking points” will occur at different levels. For example the Reddit user MattyAnon suggests The Sex God Method, and that is a good book but will be of less use to very inexperienced guys. For guys who are getting laid but are not skilled or confident enough in bed it will be extremely useful, maybe even essential. The book She Comes First is also useful and extremely recommended. Teenage guys should all be gifted a copy of this book, and even sexual veterans can probably learn a thing or two.

One of the best game posts I’ve read is by Krauser, “Reveal vs Restructure,”

I think it comes down to which side of this divide you fall on. Is your Journey a process of:

* Uncovering a pre-existing SMV and personality that is attractive to women, or;

* Ridding yourself of a Pussy Repellent virus and then building an attractive man from scratch.

A guy who is uncovering preexisting value will be different from a guy who has to build a lot of value. The latter guy may be a fat, psychologically messed up guy who needs to learn how to cook, how to quit eating sugar, how to use the gym, how to move his body, how to dress himself properly and get his clothes tailored, and why he needs to physically move to a city and get out of suburbs or rural areas. And he must start now and results may not come for a very long time. But he has no choice. He must struggle, or pay for it, or be alone.

Although this isn’t a book, I like the website Good Looking Loser because it’s about an attractive guy overcoming his own psychological barriers. There are a lot of attractive guys who need help with that. Some attractive guys have limiting beliefs and other issues that prevent them from achieving up to their level.

For books, I just wrote about the Torero book Daygame, and that is a good read. Krauser has good books too. There is a purple pill book, Mate, by evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller and writer Tucker Max, and I think it’s worth reading as well.

For guys who need help with fitness, Starting Strength is good and so is the 5×5 method or any number of others. The important thing is to start and make some progress.

Many people like the Mark Manson book Models. It isn’t my favorite but so many guys like it that I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention it.

Over time it is very important to understand how women think and how women evaluate men. There isn’t a single book that is best for this subject but all of the books recommended will help build this mental map.

My Secret Garden is all about women’s depraved sex fantasies, so if you have trouble realizing that chicks want to be totally dominated and used hard by the right guy, read it. Women prefer written porn and guys prefer visual porn, so to understand what gets women off you need to read, while also realizing that erotic material has its place but also often differs from real life.

Personally, I used to read a lot more novels than I do now. Great fiction is still wonderful but so much fiction is about people who are psychologically damaged or who are just dumb. For game-aware guys, watching fictional guys step on their dicks is painful. Usually the answer to their dilemmas is “escalate,” “lift,” or “find a new girl.” In most novels the answer is to keep pouring attention into a single hot girl, who by the end of the story comes around, exactly like most girls don’t in real life.

There is still great fiction but it is usually not about relationships. Right now I am halfway through a novel called Kingdom of the Wicked that is fun but not mainly about sexual strategy. Vary what you read or you will get bored.

If you haven’t already, on your journey you will also learn that there is life beyond game and that without personality and outside interests, you will never break into the highest girl tier for longer-term relationships, whether open or closed. Sex is like oxygen or water, because when you’re getting enough it recedes in importance, and when you’re not getting enough it becomes the focal point of your entire life (not my original metaphor but it’s a good one). When you’re confident that you can get acceptable sex in a tolerable timeframe your whole outlook changes and that is what people mean by “abundance mentality.” It’s not just a mentality, it’s a fact of existence. Abundance mentality ensures that no chick can occupy your entire mental space without your consent.

The more you read and learn, the more you will realize how most people, including most girls, are dumb. You also learn that almost no one has a complete and total handle on the game and sex. There is always another nuance.

Tom Torero’s memoir-textbook “Daygame”

I’m smacking my head after reading this:

I asked her to bring me a present costing no more than £1, and I’d do the same. It’s an “investment routine” that I’v used many times since, which gets the girls to commit to the date and not flake – they spend the week thinking of what to get you.

The quote is from Tom Torero’s Daygame and the suggestion is brilliant and easy. I wish I’d thought of this ten years ago. Being good at anything is the accumulation of thousands of small details. This suggestion is one and it must improve pipeline retention. People can also usually only hold a single thing in their mind at a time, so if she’s thinking about the present she’s not thinking about whether she ought to flake.

If you are doing any amount of game and earn more than $5 per hour you need to read this book, as it may save you many many hours through suggestions like the one above. The ones you find most useful will be different from the ones I find most useful. Guys will get more from reading one comprehensive book than 100 random, fragmented blog posts. Daygame puts many seduction pieces together. The simplest parts of game are the very beginning (when there isn’t much to do apart from opener, vibe, and stack) and the very end (the actual sex). It’s the middle where the action happens and for that reason most of Daygame is about the middle, just like most of the Internet posts are about the beginning or end, where guys need the least instruction.

There are too many lessons in Daygame to list them all, but I like: “Either interactions go well, or they’re just funny stories.” Exactly right and you have permission to take the pressure off. Be fizzy and exciting. There are an infinite number of possibilities out there and while I’ve done many things right, I’ve also spent too much of my life taking things with women too seriously. That has almost always been a mistake. Learn to let go and be light, rather than heavy.

Some of the lessons regularly readers of this blog-memoir will recognize: “This whole story, and other ones in the book, show that deleting details is a bad move, as you never know when circumstances change and a number sparks to life again.” Remember “Snapchat in Game?” That’s what I’m saying there. Girls are mercurial and pretty random, and you never know when one is going to turn back around into you. It is unwise to rely exclusively on rebounds but you will get some when you get good.

The psychology behind seduction and seducers is also of interest, at least to me. In the beginning Torero writes that “By the age of 23 I had slept with 2 women.” No wonder he later became a PUA. I had a relatively normal adolescent and college experience, as I started having sex on the early side of normal and never stopped. I waas at or close to what PUA guys call “abundance mentality.”I had crushes and oneitis problems, like most guys, but my past is nothing like Torero’s. Unlike many guys I’ve never had a long drought (except in my 20s when my now-ex had our second daughter, but that’s another story). That may be why I’m tiring of the game and grind while some older guys still love it. I feel like I’ve done it too long.

I don’t want to claim that I was a master seducer. I wasn’t. I’m not now. My younger self mostly had what I would now call eco system game: school and sports. Because I was obsessed with my sport I built up a solid body and solid group of people I knew. That continued into a job involving it, and into college. Also, as players know, the better your body the better your dating life will go (within limits and subject to diminishing returns like every other activity… I have known gym rats who’d be better served cutting their two hours a day in the gym and meeting actual girls) and that is particularly true among younger girls. Of course looks alone are not enough and especially for women a guy’s looks are linked to his status. But I do think I’ve coasted on looks and things like quitting sugar have been to a boon to both my physical self and confidence. Looks are also more important for online dating than off, in my experience, and quitting sugar while lifting assists here too.

At the end of the book Torero is a sage:

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better your vibe, the better your approaches and dates go, and the better they go, the better your vibe. I felt like I was indestructible.

It’s fun reading these hybrid memoir-textbooks, as they teach me about the writer but also about the reader. My game has never been as tight as many of these guys, and there is a concept or slider in pop psychology that may explain why: some people are “satisficers” and others are “maximizers.” As the terms imply, satisficers keep trying until the satisfaction point for their drive or desire, while maximizers want to reach the highest possible level or state. For someone doing game a maximizer seeks some combination of the absolute hottest, younger, most loyal girls, or maybe the most extreme experiences (like three ways).

Satisficers however seek “good enough” and stop there and that has mostly described me. Which explains why I have never had the energy to really press for achievements like Torero’s. To be sure I’ve had success and some crazy stories, a few of which I’ve shared here, but nothing like the quantity of women described in Daygame. Generally I find one I like and get into a mini relationship that generally lasts three to twenty-four months. Then I begin cranking again.

At first I wasn’t consciously doing this, but over time I realized it. I think I am just too lazy to bother getting really good, but this doesn’t bother me much and I’m glad there are guys who go all the way. Reading about the Elon Musks of seduction is fascinating. I’ve had some high eights and nines and while they were wonderful, the truth is that when I’m in a woman I don’t care that much about whether she’s a decent seven or a high eight. The latter is better but in my life, especially now, there aren’t a lot of high eights out there. A while ago I dated a girl who was 19 and IMO a solid 8, with things only breaking down about 20 months in when she demanded to move in and I said no. But even with a solid 8, by the 50th or 100th sex session a guy acclimates to her body. She normalizes.

Back to Torero. Interspersed among the stories are big-picture ideas, like this:

When it comes to seduction, girls don’t want logic, they want emotions. The problem is that guys approach dating and daygame from a logical perspective, when really what they should be getting better at is seeing it from the female perspective.

Absolutely. Definitely an error I made when I was younger. The book is filled with mentions of mistakes I have made. If the next generation of guys internalize these ideas maybe they will avoid the mistakes. Most guys of course are too lazy to read books, so they will make the same errors, but the knowledge is there.

If I have a criticism of the book it is that it doesn’t look enough at the dark side. Intense gaming can be isolating and very few guys share the need to do intense game. In addition I read one of Krauser’s books in which he describes Torero going deep into the void in the 2012 – 13 period. That has been excised from this book, so one would never know it. Almost all positive things also have their shadow, and the lack of shadow here makes me doubt it more than I otherwise would.

Torero also mentions going to Oxford and studying with Richard Dawkins, but he eventually becomes a primary school teacher. Perhaps the UK is different from the U.S., but in the U.S. it’s very rare for graduates of elite universities to go into low status, low pay professions like primary school teaching. So why’d he do it? What led him there? We don’t know. Maybe it isn’t important. But it seems strange from an American reader’s eyes.