Most chicks feel anxiety and uncertainty, and most guys never realize it

The three phases of the seducer | Hans Cormyn” is a good Nash essay that hits something I have been trying to articulate here and there and yet have been unable to articulate… it’s the third point in this series,

THE THREE PHASES OF THE SEDUCER.
— First Phase: “Does she like me?”
— Second Phase: “Do I like her?”
— Third Phase: “What do I need to do to make her feel beautiful?”

The “Third Phase” only happens, though, when the chick is deeply into your world/frame. Kind of like what I write about in “Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is” and “The holidays are coming up: shit tests, comfort tests, and gifts [intermediate and above]:” a chick has to feel that she is earning validation of her beauty from a high-status, cool guy in order for that validation to mean anything. Lots of chicks can get meaningless validation from whoever… but that validation is garbage. It’s like a moron admiring your intelligence. If a moron compliments you on how smart you are, do you take the compliment seriously? Of course not. Same thing here, with chicks.

Most chicks, when you get underneath their social surface and social armor (many guys never do), are just not very confident. Even many very beautiful women are insecure about their looks, their relationships with guys, etc. Many women really are like liquids, looking for vessels to give them shape and purpose. The better you know chicks, the more apparent this becomes.

Even a lot of bitchy, unappealing behavior comes from a place of weakness, fear, and uncertainty… not a place of strength. When I have written about trying to build women up… this is what I am trying to get at. Most chicks are adrift and need a man’s approval, but most guys don’t recognize this dynamic and only perceive the surface level. That was true of me for a long time.

When we laugh at or ignore shit tests, when we’re non-reactive to some kinds of typical bad female behavior, when we laugh off rejection and go find a chick worthy of our attention… we are working at these deeper levels. I think I only began to access these deeper levels around age 30. It took me like 15 years to figure out they exist. It’s hard to get below the surface level. I think a lot of guys who get this low, find a woman or two or three they want to be with and drop out of the conventional dating market.

Over time… a lot of time, too much time… I’ve figured out that even a lot of very attractive chicks are insecure about their looks, bodies, and performance. Why? They are comparing themselves to chicks who are +2 or +3 above them… they are comparing themselves to bullshit photoshopped advertisements… they are comparing themselves to the chicks they think the guy they most desire can get. There is still a lot of sex negativity in society, so chicks are worried because they know guys want sex (just as chicks do), but chicks worry about their reputations, what will happen if they seem to like sex too much, etc. etc. Chicks compete with each other quite a bit, and many chicks are worried about what their stupid friends will think of their sexual behavior. Mature, psychologically stable chicks won’t have these problems, or will understand that they need to mute these problems, but the number of mature, psychologically stable chicks is small.

So a guy who a chick heavily invests in… she really wants his validation and reassurance. That is valuable to her. Validation that she is beautiful, that she is not a slut, that she is doing good and normal things, etc. She is probably pretty uncertain about herself because she is looking “up” at the hottest/coolest/most whatever chicks (and dudes). You can call this an aspect of hypergamy if you want… I’m not a huge fan of emphasizing that idea, so I’ll mention it and move on. A girl wants to feel like she is replaceable but simultaneously that she will not be replaced.

That’s a hard place to be.

The girl I call SA girl… was not convinced of her own (phenomenal) good looks. Neither was a girl I met a couple years ago, who worked at a coffee shop…. very solid 8 while naked, yet convinced of all sorts of weird stuff, like her butt was too big (quite small, actually, too small for some guys likely), or that her boobs were asymmetrical (they were, very slightly, which is totally normal). And the number of girls who have a love-hate relationship with sex… too many to count. That is why Dr. Ruth is so famous, as she talked about sex honestly and positively… even today that is quite rare.

So a lot of chicks are scared and looking for validation from top guys. Sort of like guys are looking for validation from chicks; is my dick big enough, do I last long enough, am I better than her ex, can this girl finally bestow confidence on me, etc. etc. All the insecurities that the Internet seduction boards overflow with.

A lot of guys are insecure themselves, and/or chasing girls way above them in SMV, and/or wrongly fixated on one girl whose acceptance or, more often, rejection they hang their whole self-image on. If you’re a guy in middle or high school… and your experience of chicks is based on chasing the top 10% of chicks (there are some age effects at work too, more on those later), many of whom are themselves uncertain, scared, etc… you might perceive chicks as having all the power. “Bottom” guys who never adequately develop themselves, yet desire top-tier chicks, experience the same. Many of them experience chicks as having all the power, and guys as having little or none.

I perceived life that way until I was in my early 20s or so. It took me a long time to understand the chicks’s perspectives… to read evolutionary biology books… to talk to chicks who I might perceive as having the power, to realize the chick herself doesn’t perceive that… to understand the weird paradoxes that underlie a lot of female psychology. For a guy, too, understanding that a lot of chicks are just f**king random goes a long way to explaining a given woman’s behavior. The woman herself probably doesn’t know what’s driving her… how can a guy expect her to articulate it to him? Male sexual desire is also a pretty simple algorithm: more sex with any acceptably hot chick is a win. Female sexual psychology is more elaborate, more contingent, more confused, more uncertain. Guys try to solve it like it’s an engineering problem, only to discover a lot of chicks don’t work that way.

A successful player gets to know chicks… and sees many of their internal uncertainties… and realizes that chicks need the guy to help them be whole. Ms. Slav has some of that, though the ways in which she does are too specific for me to state them here. The girl I call “#2” in the book had a LOT of that, because she couldn’t process her own inner roaring sexual desire with her societal conditioning, so she needed me to process it externally for her. SA Girl had had a bad boyfriend or something like that and had somewhat stunted sexual expression and expectation because of it. Low-cut top girl seemed to be pretty complete, actually, though she has other problems in my view. Peaches also seems pretty complete. Most the chicks I slept with in college weren’t that complete, but largely as a function of age, their own uncertainty, and the uncertainties of the guys around them.

Young and inexperienced guys think chicks have all the power. That’s because they don’t get that 1. Chicks bear greater sex risk via pregnancy, 2. From puberty well into the 20s, chicks have greater sexual power than dudes on average, and 3. Most chicks are looking to “date up” and often have the ability to do so. Almost all guys can find at least ONE CHICK who will be into them… the problem is the quality of that chick…

There is also the notion, now somewhat common among guys in the seduction community boards, that chicks just get their sexual market value, while guys often have to earn their SMV. This is basically true. An attractive girl just shows up to the dance, if you will, and has a lot of value by virtue of being hot. There are a small number of guys like that, but most guys have to earn it or build it. What “earning” or “building” means will differ by age.

By age 30, the sexual marketplace switches around a lot of the time, since guys are willing to date from age 18 on up, while most chicks want their age or older. They get fewer options and their biological clocks are ticking. Many are encumbered by children. So a lot of guys from puberty well into their 20s perceive chicks as having all the sexual power… and yet that can change, if the guy keeps working on his value and is willing to date the full spectrum of chicks. Guys also don’t realize that some percentage of young chicks are getting trained by much older dudes in sex arts and confidence. I didn’t fully get that when I was younger… now that I have been the trainer, I get it.

Then there is the sex itself. If you understand female physiology, you understand that most chicks cannot orgasm without clitoral stimulation (there are exceptions; one of my favorite girls was an exception). That is why I wrote Tell your girl to use a vibrator during sex, and other bedroom tips. Chances are that she needs her fingers or your tongue on her clit to orgasm, and this is not always easy/simple during PIV intercourse. But most chicks never think to add toys or, if they do, they worry that the guy is going to think he is not enough or, worse, that she is a sex-crazy slut. Many guys, meanwhile, feel they are not a REAL MAN if she does orgasm ALL OVER HIS MAGIC PENIS. Because it is MAGIC, she CRAVES it uncontrollably. Sometimes this can happen, yes, and it has happened to me… more often, she needs the full-body experience. But she wants it without feeling bad. Who can deliver that feeling to her?

YOU can.

Guys who don’t work to develop their value, game, etc., never see the uncertain, fearful, anxious sides of attractive women. Top players do.

By the way, I still get ice cold rejections from chicks, blowouts, etc. I’m not some super-player. But I have learned (mostly) to let it go. And I have seen enough of chicks to see that many are worth trying to “build up…” but only AFTER they have invested deeply in me (or you). If you try to build up a chick who has not invested in you, you are just another beta dude feeding her free and unearned resources, attention, etc. As so often happens, there are guys talking past each other online, at different “levels” of the game or seduction process. A guy at one level, may not even PERCEIVE the other level(s) are there. This goes both ways, too. A bottom guy reading this will see women’s bitchy, cold social armor and think most of this post is ridiculous. A top guy reading this post may read it and think that it’s obvious to him, isn’t it obvious to every guy? I have been both in my life, at different times, with different chicks, etc. Probably my biggest transition is to let a lot of the bullshit go, to stop feeding attention to chicks who aren’t going in the direction I want them to go, to accept that most chicks will say no, to focus attention on the chicks who say yes or who are on the path to saying yes. A chick who is fundamentally a “no…” needs to be chucked. A girl who is a “maybe” is where a lot of the game is.

Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures

On Twitter there’s a dumb thread about a chick complaining about guys using her for sex and then ditching her, usually after bad sex. That’s an easy diagnosis: she’s almost certainly chasing guys who are +2 or +3 above her in sexual market value (SMV). They’re not going to date her, they’re not going to try in bed, but if she offers herself up one of those guys will go for her. I’ve been in the guy’s position before… my natural hunting ground is 7s: chicks lower than that aren’t of much interest to me, while chicks who are true 8s, are just not that common and are often particular. I’ve been there with 8s, I’ve succeeded, but I don’t see/meet very many of them, let alone bang them. I’m also just some hot chicks’s type, and when that happens I can cruise right into bed.

A few years ago (around the time I started writing on Reddit, or just before that) I tried an app called Kinkd, which advertised itself as being something like Tinder or Feeld for kinky people; as players know, “kinky = easy & sex positive.” Downside, though, is that most openly kinky chicks are not the best looking. Fetlife has the online market pretty covered, but I gave Kinkd a shot and managed to meet two okay chicks, high 6s, without too much work; both were novices and liked that I knew about parties, events, etc. Don’t underestimate social proof in this area, either. Both chicks seemed like they might be 7s, based on their duplicitous pics, but real life reveals all. One was a straightforward once a week lay for a couple weeks, and things ended when she said that “all guys are the same” because I said I liked her but didn’t think we are compatible.

The other chick I did more or less the same thing with, although she was more reluctant to have actual sex. But the first time I saw her, I basically fingered her g-spot into a multi-minute orgasm of some kind (at least, she said it was). It was a strange experience for me and, I think, for her. Did do a lot of bonding in a small space, though, and because my SMV was higher than hers and I also didn’t slut-shame her, she was into me fast. Too fast. They’re the kind of chicks I am now mostly trying to turn down, as marginal notches.

I actually think it’s good for guys to give chicks a good sexual experience, even if the guy decides he’s not that into the chick. It’s not that much extra work, yet many guys don’t bother. Most chicks are also responsive to toys, and something like an njoy pure wand is a good tool for both a chick a guy is into and one he isn’t (just for different reasons).

Female SMV is pretty straightforward for short-term activity and a little more complex over the long term. Male SMV is trickier and more contingent; chicks have a wider array of factors they’re looking at and are just more arbitrary. But if a guy is getting consistent blowouts, his SMV is probably too low. Chicks are also herd animals and will value a guy with a girlfriend, even a low-status one, over a guy without one. Having one makes it easier to get the next. Guys can branch-swing too, although most lack the skill, discipline, game, and inclination to do so.

Most chicks who complain about pump-and-dumps are simply chasing guys too high above them. Chicks with reasonable expectations find what they want. People who have an accurate assessment of their SMV and act accordingly tend to do fine. This is more common among guys but still less common than it should be.

Everyone has the same options: improve their value; improve their game; change their environment. Chicks who are chasing guys +2 or +3 above them… are going to get the kind of outcomes this person is complaining about.

Added: Another story, same basic situation. Almost no mainstream writers are willing to write frankly and honestly about SMV, particularly female SMV. That does a disservice to women, but the market for “You’re perfect, just the way you are” is much larger than the market for “This is how the real world works.”

Game or relationship “levels:” Different for men and women

There are different “levels” of game/relationship skills, each with its distinct but overlapping characteristics.

Meeting/getting laid: This is the stage most game guys live in: for guys, it’s often a struggle just to meet chicks and get laid. Most guys need to up their sex appeal, social skills, fashion, etc. Some guys are also living in bad environments (rural areas, suburbs). Most chicks don’t talk much about this, as it’s not important to height-weight proportionate chicks in their teens, 20s, or 30s. For chicks it’s not hard to get laid, even by guys who are +2 or +3 in sexual market value (SMV). Chicks would do better if they opened more guys, but that’s like telling the average barista they should just move to Silicon Valley and become a programmer to improve their life. The advice will be relevant to like 1/100 people.

Short-term relationships: These are usually easy as the honeymoon effect is strong and for that reason there is not much to say here. Lust and novelty maintains the relationship.

Medium-term relationships: These probably last from two months to two years. I have written a lot about how to manage expectations with these chicks. Guys who want novelty but want to retain chicks find this stage difficult.

Chicks who write about medium-term relationships are almost always writing about how to get this relationship into the long-term relationship. Most dating advice by and for chicks lives in this space and later. Most dating advice by and for guys lives in the meeting- and short-term space. For most chicks, just showing up or logging online is sufficient to get laid. But for most chicks who have decided to invest heavily in a guy, this is one of the hardest stages. Many guys begin to feel the call of the wild again after 100 or 200+ bangs w/ a particular girl. Dating power shifts to guys after sex and in this phase.

Long-term relationships (without kids): I don’t get why most guys would want to be in a very long-term, monogamous relationship with a woman unless there are kids involved, but some guys do this. The big problem for both men and women is boredom. For financially dysfunctional people, the big problem may remain daily living. Not much chick advice lives here.

Long-term relationships with kids: This is another place where lots of dating and life advice exists for both guys and chicks. It’s hard to do successfully. Competing interests are common.

A lot of man advice focuses on stages one and two. A lot of chick advice focuses on stages three and later. Does it seem like men and women are having different conversations around dating, relationships, and sex? That’s because we often are. I wrote “Kids, the player, and the Red Pill: Comprehensive statement” to offer some thinking to guys who are age 30+ and who are doing well in stages one and two. Guys online who do well in stages one and two seem to stop writing, as I will likely do.

Game helps the most at stages one and two. It obviously helps in the later stages, but the big boost is stages one and two. I’ve read players who say that game gets you in the door, but then you have to try living in the house. Once you are regularly tagging a chick, she is going to start to see who you really are, what really drives you, what you do when you’re sexually satiated, what your family constellation is like, etc.

What a woman who is determined to stay married looks like

She looks like this

I think I would be a jealous bitch if anyone actually DM’ed him or anything — but in our ten years together, I’ve never really had to deal with that. If I’m being honest, I think it’s because I have sex with my man. He always comes home to me. He never strays. He never even looks.

A woman who wants to keep her relationship is making sure sex happens. This woman is 1. A teacher, 2. Cooks, and 3. Fucks. I have mentioned before that teachers and nurses are naturally good life partners… they have jobs that pay acceptably and that are easy to take a year or two off to have kids. For some reason no one tells women in college that most corporate jobs have an arc that is very difficult to interrupt to have a family. Teaching and nursing have interruption built into them.

Women who want to be married and stay married build the skills they need to make that happen and employ those skills. Women who don’t… well, you’ve read plenty about them, that I don’t need to repeat.

The skills women need to get and stay married are not very complicated, but our society is determined to try and hide them. Be pleasant to be around, cook, and fuck… if a woman can consistently do those things, she’s a lot of the way towards being married and staying married.

NOTE: F**ked up the link first time through, and it’s now fixed.

Kids, the player, and the Red Pill: Comprehensive statement

I don’t have good answers or solutions to questions around how players who wants kids, should go about having them (and I think most guys should have kids… MOST is not ALL, so you may be an exception). I’m skeptical of the “Just do THIS, bro” stories I see, most of which reduce to a couple scenarios:

  • “Just marry the RIGHT woman:” while screening women is helpful, it is not possible to know how someone will evolve three years, five years, ten years later. You are still gambling when you marry a woman.
  • “Just marry and hope for the best.” This is a good way to lose half your assets, and to pay alimony in addition to child support.
  • “Just have a kid with a woman in a non-committed relationship and keep your harem going.” Most women won’t agree to this. In an age of reliable birth control and abortion, she is not likely to go for this by accident. This scenario is not impossible, just not common.
  • “Just have a kid and then leave the woman.” This is very bad for the kid and also hard to set up and execute.

In my view, guys in their teens, 20s, and early 30s need to have experience with a wide array of women BEFORE they attempt to set up a family.

Most women are ill-suited to relationships and family and most modern women under the age of 27/28 are not actually ready to have kids, even if they think they are. Many, conceivably most, women who have kids younger than that age stay with the father for a couple years, then divorce / leave him for one last big ride. It also seems that most guys comply with female demands and just wander into marriage because they don’t think they can get another girl; while this is a terrible reason to marry, it’s also super common. I encourage you NOT to sleepwalk into marriage. One way to know whether you should stay with a woman is to ask yourself, “Can I get another woman at least as good as this one if I want to?” If the honest answer is “Yes,” then you should consider staying with her. Only stay with her if you have options. If you don’t have options, you need to up your value and game.

Despite all the pleasures of being a player (it has NEVER been a better time to be a player, despite what you hear sometimes online), I think most guys eventually want kids. Typically this seems to happen around age 35 – 40. A guy who has been in the game for 5 – 10 years often tires of it… while f**king hot chicks never gets old, at least for me, it can get repetitive and unsatisfying, for lack of a better term. Many guys come to yearn for something more substantial in their lives than slagging randoms until the point they no longer can. If you’re a committed player for life, that’s fine, this is not for you and I wish you good luck in your endeavors. This is for guys who start thinking beyond the next bang. I spent a long time thinking about the next bang, so, again, I’m not opposed to that view… but I think I’m growing away from it.

Modern marriage doesn’t work because it’s a high-risk contract with little reward for the guy. In our society we link sexuality tightly with raising children. Is it possible to separate those two, despite the way marriage co-mingles them? To have a kid, but also to have other partners, consensually? It seems that very few people think about this, let alone try it. Yet many people end up doing it: they just marry, have kids, then have an acrimonious divorce, which is in effect a parturition of sexuality and child rearing. What if you skip the acrimony and the false till-death-do-us-part thing? I don’t see how people can make till-death-do-us-part promises with a straight face today, despite the regularity with which people do just that.

I’m interested in co-parenting as an alternative. Very few women have heard of co-parenting, though. The conversation about co-parenting is just getting started, and it’s more common than it was ten years ago.

It’s also apparent that most sexual relationships lose their sexual component over time, and that’s part of the reason I’m interested in consensual non-monogamy. Consensual non-monogamy is hard, and many people are inclined to succumb to the power and lure of “new relationship energy” (NRE), instead of investing in their previous relationship(s), which they have already hedonically adapted to.

I’ve been talking more w/ women (and some men) about co-parenting, since, it’s clear that the “we’re going to put our entire sexual, economic, and child-raising eggs in one basket” system hasn’t been working very well for decades. Is it possible or conceivable that we can have a consensual, intelligent co-parenting system instead? It doesn’t seem totally impossible to me, and some people are (finally) talking about this, which in my view is long overdue.

I wonder if more couples would work better w/ something like a child-raising and care contract. A lot of the successful couples I see seem to either be post-sex (weird to me, but whatever), or have quiet side arrangements. Problem for guys is that quiet side arrangements are much easier for women to arrange than guys to arrange. Just like a woman who writes on a dating app, “In a relationship and looking for something casual” will be inundated with sex requests while a guy who does the same will… not be. That’s why I’m more fond of the sex club situation, where extremely direct reciprocation is the norm.

Overall, I just don’t think humans are good at long-term monogamy. Even in the days after the Industrial Revolution and before reliable birth control, the likelihood of relentless, back-breaking labor and the possibility of early death means that it’s possible not that many people did modern long-term monogamy.

Today, I’m envisioning something like a five-year shared-resources contract, the purpose of which is to have two kids and remain romantically entangled. Then, after, you can re-evaluate the contract and decisions. Or a contract might specify that you’re going to have kids and do 50/50 custody and not leave the metro area. We’re pretty far from having this conversation, but many people are already doing something like this, if you look at the divorce rate.

Realistically, it is also very difficult if not impossible for most guys to have very small kids and be anything like a player. Well, maybe if you have the money to hire a full-time nanny or something like that, but apart from corner/edge cases it’s not going to happen, if you’re also dealing with kid stuff. The people who think otherwise either haven’t been in the situation or just abandon Mom/kid, which I also think is bad. For a lot of people who have two kids two years apart, they spend six years in “kid world” dealing with very small kids. Some have families who assume part of the burden. Some pay for child care. Some do both. Many just work their way through it. I recommend buying kettlebells and doing kettlebell workouts.

It is possible to have somewhat older kids, when they are more autonomous, and split time w/ the Mom and be a player. Most guys just don’t do this, or can’t.

I’m interested in co-parenting because it seems obvious to me that a) traditional marriage doesn’t work but all that b) having kids is important and meaningful. How do you square that circle?

For a guy who makes a really large amount of money, it’s possible to deal with “child” support and the family-law system. It could also conceivably be possible to hire nannies, etc. and still be a player. I’m saying “possible” because I don’t think I know anyone who’s done it (though I’m not sure I know any true players anyway). For most people, kids, especially when young, just take a lot of time and attention, in a way that’s not very compatible with sleeping around.

I mentioned that many guys eventually get bored with being a player. I think we have been psychologically selected in part for having and being around kids, and it is very hard to get over our evolved psychology. The “grandmother hypothesis” asks if women experience menopause and cease reproduction, yet keep living for decades after, as an evolutionary adaptation to help their daughters’s grandchildren. While older men may still be able to have children, it’s not obvious how often men age 50+ actually did so… men may also be psychologically primed for leadership roles and to help their grandchildren. If so, then failing to set yourself up to be able to do that may be setting yourself up for psychological disappointment.

I like citing evolutionary biology and psychology, and those fields may have implications for stage of life. We look to them as players because they provide a theoretical framework for what chicks are into. But we can also look to them for other virtues, like how to think about age and family. Many families and communities are fractured by travel for jobs and by simple social dysfunction.

If our psychologies are primed for children/grandchildren, that can explain why so many people (including guys) without kids seem pretty f**ked up and bitter. There is a mismatch between what their deep psychologies want them to do, and what they have done or are doing. That mismatch is hard to reconcile.

It seems there is also a difference between a “happy” and “meaningful” life, which many of us intuit.

Satisfying one’s needs and wants increased happiness but was largely irrelevant to meaningfulness. Happiness was largely present oriented, whereas meaningfulness involves integrating past, present, and future. For example, thinking about future and past was associated with high meaningfulness but low happiness. Happiness was linked to being a taker rather than a giver, whereas meaningfulness went with being a giver rather than a taker. Higher levels of worry, stress, and anxiety were linked to higher meaningfulness but lower happiness.

That matches my intuitive sense and what I have been trying to convey. There is some trade off between having the best immediate experience RIGHT NOW and building a life that is “meaningful,” “substantial,” choose your word here. American society tells us we are supposed to be “happy,” which sounds a little like consumerist advertising bullshit to me.

One player I know wrote,

The firm subtext I have with any girl I date now is outcome indifference. She can more or less come and go as she pleases and I am fine either way. Once you have a child I do not see how you can become anything but outcome dependent. How would you handle that loss of leverage over her behaviour?

When you have a kid, you’re very likely going to be less outcome independent with the woman, but you also have to remember that, if she wants to leave and sue you for child support… she will. That’s just a fact. But most normal women want a partner and a father for their child, so, typically a man’s leverage increases in the first few years of the child’s life, as normal women want to be subsidized financially and want their child to have a father.

You can of course find exceptions to this. The exceptions make great stories.

It’s really difficult to predict how women respond to being a parent. They seem to have all kinds of responses, many of them unpredictable. In some sense you are tied to her for the next twenty years. But, in another sense, you still have to be ready to leave, or to have her leave; the main way to be outcome independent is to be prepared, psychologically and logistically, for what will happen in the event of a split.

The negative and the positive are both parts of life. Dwell too long or too far on either, and you will not be a complete person, in my opinion; complete persons have to embrace both. I like to think that I do, though I may be deluding myself.

Functional women also try very hard to make sure they are NOT going to have a kid with a deadbeat, a lackadaisical guy, or even a player who is going to abandon them. Women who are functional today get an IUD and, even if they get pregnant by a non-investing guy, they are not going to keep the baby. Obviously, many women are dysfunctional, but I’m not convinced it’s a great idea to have a baby with a dysfunctional woman. In an era of long-acting reversible contraception, separating sex from reproduction is easy and functional women do it.

There is also a stage-of-life question to the woman or women a guy is dating. Most chicks under age 22 – 25 DO NOT CARE about your career, your intellect, etc. They are in it for the hot guys, the feels, and the excitement (mostly). Chicks who pay their own rent, often evaluate guys on other factors in addition to hotness and feelings. There is a big gap between chicks who are being heavily subsidized by parents/state (via student loans) and chicks who have to pay their own way. The latter usually get MUCH more interested in a guy’s career and intellect, as those things directly affect his ability to keep roof over head. This is much harder than many chicks realize.

This is not universal, and some 18-year-old chicks will be very intersted in earning power and some 31-year-old chicks won’t give a f**k. But it is a strong correlation. It make sense, too. There is a lot of stuff in the Red Pill about how chicks’s sexual market value (SMV) is predominantly determined by looks and youth. While that’s true, it’s also overstated, especially for guys looking for a longer-term chick. For a guy looking purely for hookups, it’s pretty much all about the hotness. For a guy evaluating a longer-term deal, though, then her own psychology, earning power, etc. become much more important in the evaluation. In the modern world, a chick without a job is sending a terrible signal about herself.

Chicks also have their own game… chicks realize early on that they are competing against other chicks, and that, if all she offers is f**king… well, lots of other chicks can and do do that too. So women ideally learn how to cook, at least, and ideally learn other useful skills too. It seems that most women underestimate how much that can make them stand apart.

In some ways this is a lame essay, because I don’t have great answers to the problems of childbearing and long-term relationships. This is the Internet, so I know I am supposed to be the God-like guru who KNOWS EVERYTHING. I am not, though, and I don’t know everything, and some questions are unanswerable. I see that the old structures don’t work anymore and have been killed by feminism, despite the many men who are still foolhardy enough to sign the marriage contract. Almost no one is talking about the new structures (if you know someone who is, please tell me about them). So where does someone go who does want a family but also sees conventional marriage as fucked? We have to write a whole new playbook from scratch, which is pretty uncommon. Many of the suggestions I have read are either unrealistic or assume a massive amount of income/wealth, which is itself unrealistic for most people. Yes, I know the Internet has many people making $250,000/year in location-independent income, and they are willing to show you how to do it too for the low low price of $995… but that is atypical. If you genuinely have it, good for you, but most people don’t.

Chicks also go through the epicycles men do. A 35-year-old woman who just got out of an eight or ten year relationship might be ready for some hot guy casual sex. Or a 45-year-old woman for that matter. The woman I call Low-cut top girl is younger than that and didn’t have as long a relationship, but she is/was in that phase. These epi-cycles are why marriage is so foolish for most men. A woman may love a man for ten years and then leave. Why give her half your money too?

This piece has probably taken a longer time than anything else I’ve written, and it still feels very incomplete to me. The whole Red Pill world feels incomplete to me at times… I saw a smart Tweet on the subjet,

The root cause of the brain drain in the PUA industry post 2010s.

The pick up guys who are cool and intelligent stay hidden because they have professional and business reputations to maintain.

The end result is the PUAs that go public are mostly unsuccessful weirdos.

Most guys with things going for them, would have to be nuts to come out. At some point, (almost) everyone needs to change pace. From f**king tons of chicks to building a substantial contribution. From writing online to living in real life. Not everyone… but most of us.

There is also a thing in modern upper-middle-class culture called “helicopter parenting” or “snowplow parenting.” If you work with Gen Zers in the 18 – 23 age bracket you may have seen some of the results. This kind of parenting is crazy, time-intensive, and leads to neurotic parenting and kids. Most amusingly, it does not work. How your kid turns out is largely not up to the parent, within reason. Jocko Willink has said that he lets his kids fail (in non-physically threatening ways). It’s important to know the strategic mission that the family is trying to accomplish. A lot of contemporary upper-middle-class parenting is about doing everything for the kid, destroying the adult’s life and not letting the kid develop. Don’t do this, although your peers might be doing it.

So, like I said at the beginning, I don’t have a final answer and am suspicious of those who claim to. I think that consensual co-parenting is a smart route, but most chicks are not going to go for it both because of cultural conditioning around marriage and because the marriage contract gives them an option on the guy’s financial resources. Chicks are also driven to find a guy they think is higher than them on the social totem pole. But there is a limit on how many guys are up there, so a lot of chicks end up becoming cat ladies instead of having families. Sad, but that is modern society. Chicks don’t learn femininity and then are surprised guys don’t respond to them… guys don’t learn masculinity and then are surprised when chicks don’t respond to them. The chicks who learn femininity aren’t online feminists… the guys who learn masculinity aren’t online PUAs. You see through the system, then you figure out who and what you really are. You figure out the final answers given by gurus are wrong or incomplete. You see that there is only the struggle. Eventually all of us lose the struggle and die… to live is to struggle.

Why romantic rejection stings: evolved psychology

Humans spent most of our evolutionary history in small bands and/or villages of 30 – 150 people; think about that ancestral environment for a minute: in it, there were likely only a handful of unattached, fecund women at any given time, all of them enmeshed in family kinship ties that had to be navigated by any guy who wants a shot at their p***y. In that environment, making a play for a chick and losing might be severely damaging or even fatal to a guy’s reproductive prospects; a guy should experience a severe psychological penalty if he fails. All of his people are probably going to learn of his failure, and failure may lead to a failure cascade. Fail hard enough and your genes wash out of the gene pool.

Contrast that with today (you can probably see where I’m going): in high schools or colleges, a guy may be surrounded by dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of attractive prime-age women. In big cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or London, that number rises to the hundreds of thousands. Any particular rejection shouldn’t matter, yet to many of us it does, to the point that fear of rejection inhibits the attempt. In some circumstances, circumspection is still desirable: a lot of high school and college chicks are super into a guy’s social network and standing, which is why cold approach pickup is often undesirable in these environments… even though most high school and college guys should be bolder than they are and risk/accept more rejection.

Today, most women have minimal romantic oversight by their kin, particularly for short-term mating and after the high-school period. Women make their own sexual decisions. For guys living in big cities, any particular rejection is meaningless, yet it still stings. I think that’s our evolved response to sexual rejection, which is maladaptive in most modern situations. If she says no, move on to the next one. Practice hitting on women like you’d practice any other skill. If a guy works on his value, value delivery mechanism, and environment, he will likely improve. But in hitting on chicks and accepting their sometimes-cruel rejection, he may be pushing against his own psychology, and that is difficult. I want to acknowledge that it is difficult. Men and women have overlapping but distinct sexual strategies, which means that both sexes will struggle, just in different ways. The way to minimize struggle is to be ultra-high value (unlikely) or give up (unsatisfying). The rest of us must face the dragon.

It’s useful to try and overcome some emotional responses with rational thought. Useful, but difficult, and likely imperfect. I don’t expect to completely overcome emotional responses, but I wish to try, and, in my life, the effort to think through my feelings has been rewarded. Your first feeling toward a situation or thing is often wrong.

Understanding our evolved psychology is important for understanding how to live today. In ancestral times, a sweet tooth was adaptive and helped guide us towards edible fruits and honey, both of which were likely important to survival. Today, industrial agricultural can deliver sugar in quantities totally foreign to evolutionary times, leading to obesity, diabetes, etc. Almost everyone who quits sugar gets great results. Standing apart from the herd, though, is hard, and we see the results of those who can’t stand out (fat people) all around us. The modern information environment may also be bad for us, attempting to generate fake tribalism and bullshit outrage because both are extremely attractive, even if they’re bad for us. We should be reading more books and fewer anger-inducing, polarizing media articles.

I write about the ailments of sugar and the pain of rejection not because I am beyond them, but because I am not. I still struggle with both, even as I try to build habits that minimize the struggle, or allow me to win. I’m not 100% successful. Rejection still annoys me at times. I miss chicks I ought to open. I try to re-center myself by asking, “Why am I responding this way? What is the good response? What would Marcus Aurelius do, besides conquer Gaul?” We live for only a short while. We should try to do it as best we can.

I’m writing this today because I believe I’m both rejecting and being rejected this weekend. Plus, I read an incredible Red Pill account by an anthropologist, Napoleon Chagnon, who perseveres through both the tribe he studies and the Marxist-indoctrinated colleagues who can’t conceive of a world outside their narrow ideological bubble. The world rarely confirms to an ideology. We try to make it so at our own peril.

Emotions and Ms. Slav, Low-cut top girl and a weird foursome

Last Friday, after a decent interval since I’d last seen her (er, had sex with her…), Ms. Slav came over and we discussed this, and what else in her life has been going on (a lot), what else has been going in mine (not that much), and the nature of being in different stages of life. The sex was weirdly tender and emotional… I don’t think it was “goodbye sex,” but it may be “de-escalation” sex. She is still learning a lot of things (more on that later). One nice thing about Ms. Slav is that pretty much any time we get together, we have sex, no matter what else is happening. Regular f**king really does smooth over a lot of other issues… if more women understood this and implemented it, the divorce rate would be considerably lower. Just getting on the knees and sucking a couple times a week really does strengthen relationships. Couples therapists need to start assigning blowjob therapy if they are serious about helping people in relationships.

Low-cut top girl DID show up to the foursome, and I was pretty surprised. She dressed in an outfit very similar, or maybe identical, to the one she was wearing the night I met her… only two months ago… feels like a lot longer.

The foursome was pretty straightforward, although early on the woman in the other couple asked a lot of questions about how we know each other and what our relationship is like. I thought I might be headed home alone, as the other couple could tell we don’t know each other well. Many couples prefer to swap with another established, firm couple, as that limits some kinds of jealousy, as well as some mate-poaching behavior. Alcohol and novelty won the day, however, and I split a hotel room with the other guy. Woman was pretty but not too special, late 20s/early 30s, and she and her man had clearly made the full swap decision ahead of time. The other guy wanted to make a sex tape (like me!), but she nixed it. All in the game. I did a really nice job railing her from behind and got into that zone where the sex is pleasurable but not so overwhelming as to make me finish early. The woman also didn’t tighten as much as some women do when they orgasm, so that let me keep going. High-performance nights are always nice.

The other guy had performance troubles, so I gave him a bit of substance to help, and about 45 minutes later he was ready to go. I told him that it’s common to seek certain aids in that situation, as it can be harder to perform in a group among novel participants than among basic one-on-one sex. Plus, just trying to put people at ease when they’re uncomfortable or anxious goes a long way to solving discomfort or anxiety. “It’s okay, don’t worry about it, it happens to everyone sometimes” are all magic words. Sort of like how players know that “It’s okay, you can leave any time you want to” often disarms LMR. I have sometimes stood up when I’m with a girl and moved away from her and said, “The door is right over there. I’m not forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do. You can walk out now or any time.” A little comfort is useful.

Overall a successful evening. Low-cut top girl was annoyed that I wouldn’t let her stay in the hotel. I needed to go home and told her needed to as well. She argued that I had already paid for the hotel, which was true, but I told her that I also needed to go home. I told her that if she wanted to stay she had to give them her credit card, which she wouldn’t do. Bit of an ugly scene. May have cued the other couple to make an independent play for her. I hope they do. Low-cut top girl is absolutely the sort of chick who’d clean out the mini-bar and order $500 in bullshit on my card. Doesn’t speak well of her, now that I read my own description of her. I need to find more compatible chicks. I would actually trust Ms. Slav not to do that kind of shit. She might do it inadvertently, because that’s what she does in expensive hotels.

This week, Low-cut top girl has been sending me a lot of messages (many of them I’m not replying to, in keeping my “once per day at most” texting and Internet distraction philosophy) but refusing to come over… that might be for the best. We’ve been on an accelerated timeline, so maybe from open to ending is going to occur in less time than usual. After our foursome that is surprising, even to me, but that foursome may have been a one-time thing. She samples the food, doesn’t care for it, is glad she tried it, moves on with her life.

Low-cut top girl also wants to know why I don’t take her out to dinner, which, along with music/concerts, has been a historical sore point and push-pull point for me and chicks. I told her to read The Millionaire Next Door (a great book, you should read it). I might give her a copy if I see her again, though she is the kind of girl who is going to yo-yo back and forth or just ghost me when she finds another dude. I have lower financial discipline than I did when I really had no money… I need to quit buying camera gear, which is a vice of mine… but I still have pretty decent financial disipline… and part of that is just not spending money on stupid shit like expensive dinners out. I like a lot of what are now called “fast casual” places… she apparently likes expensive sit-down places? I dunno, I can countenance those at work… I can deal with them rarely… a lot of the time I’d rather just have some falafel or a burrito bowl, plus extra cash in pocket. Real freedom is not having to worry about money.

Most restaurants are also just too damn noisy, and that’s terrible for social bonding or learning.

Mostly, though… it’s the money… and the number of people who are better to talk to, than a book is to be read… well… it’s not as high as I’d like. This girl also liked expensive restaurants, but she was kind of weird in public… she’d be fine in private, one-on-one, but didn’t interact well in public. It was like dating two different chicks, personality-wise. Oddly, that girl wants to get a drink w/ me… I have been meaning to do it.

I tweeted, “Building the mind is a lifelong project.” If you are not reading you are probably not learning as much as you can or should.

Ms. Slav, though… Ms. Slav is also discovering the downside of saying “yes” too much… she is stretched thin. I would phrase it as, she is giving away a lot of value… so everyone is coming out to grab some… and she needs to retract / guard her value a little better. Chicks would never frame something this way… but that is what I see. I told her about my growing discomfort with how I am living, and my desire to do something different. I think she gets it. Although she thinks I can do family AND do the life I have been living… it’s not impossible, just really f**king unlikely. One rule in game is to assume the median girl, at least until proven otherwise. Guys know that it’s POSSIBLE to be standing around at a regular party or whatever, and have some stunning 8 open you and then f**k her later that night. It’s also POSSIBLE for Tinder to work that way. It’s just super unlikely. You want to take high-percentage shots. In today’s NBA, that means threes or right next to the basket. It’s POSSIBLE to win with a lot of long twos… just not likely.

Guys who want to win, try to put themselves in the best position possible to win at whatever their game is. For a guy who wants to be in the game, that means moving to a city and not living in a rural area or an exurb. For a guy who wants a kid (or more kids), how I am living… is not the optimal way to go about that goal.

With Low-cut top girl, I feel like I am experiencing deja vu… she is new to me but is overall close to the typical female. So close that I feel like I’ve already seen everything she says or does. Ms. Slav is the exact opposite.