Non-monogamy and polyamory’s dark sides

Bo Winegard tweets,

Educated elites who believe that polyamory can be practiced and enjoyed by most of the population remind me of the math professor who believes differential equations are within the grasp of anyone who makes a serious attempt at learning.

There exists compelling research that normative monogamy is beneficial and leads to myriad positive social externalities.

Polyamory is fine as a niche relationship modality, practiced mostly among the extremely WEIRD [Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic].

He’s right, particularly regarding people who want real families (a topic we’ll come back to in a moment). Despite what you’ve read here, I buy this Bo Winegard argument… we’re also not willing as a society to have an honest conversation about what’s happening below the IQ median. The people driving the conversation at the top really don’t have any idea what’s happening down there, and choose deliberately not to. They don’t really understand what it’s like to not have the cognitive capacity to get top-end jobs or have the conversations non-monogamous people need if their relationships are going to survive.

Nash follows up with…

“Burning Man style: POLYAMORY is more standard than monogamy. Men get the variety they want. They think sharing their women and it’s a ‘form of love evolution’ (they are no longer jealous), but what is happening is it pretty much destroys most of those relationships.”

“In ‘Burning Man’ it’s fine to take off your clothes and dance around really sexually. If you were at your grandma’s house having dinner (or around children), and you did that, would it ‘open everyone’s heart?’ Or would it create a fiasco? It would create a fiasco.”

Those are from David Deida talks. Deida’s more right than wrong, right now… poly/open is a fiasco in all instances except, basically, as casual sex, which is how I do them. Some light swinging can work too, especially in very long term relationships (that get stale and need some more heat). A very small number of people can really do them as described. Mostly, “poly” and “open” are about rationalizing casual sex (which is how I use it… because it’s a form of normalizing and institutionalizing casual sex for me, I don’t get caught up on the terminology). In that post from two years ago, Nash said, “for me the ‘poly’ community is a fucking mess. I live in CA and I am surrounded by these folks… and it’s an ugly shitshow. I watch guys ‘try’ this all the time, and they are a fucking sad bunch, mostly.” “Mostly” he’s right. The guys doing this at the higher end are also focused on one guy and two women, and they often don’t highly advertise what they’re doing. Most top guys don’t want to advertise what they’re doing. A lot of chicks also don’t want to come out as sharing a guy with another chick.

Poly and open are (mostly) a disaster for people who really want families, cause kids are challenging enough w/o all that adult drama. For most people, in effect, poly is a way to f**k around, avoid commitment (avoidant attachment styles are everywhere in open relationships), and enjoy sexual novelty… things I have tended to enjoy… most guys don’t want to raise another man’s child (and won’t) and most chicks aren’t eager to raise another woman’s child (but might if the guy is good enough). People in “poly” relationships who think they’re going to “have a child” together usually discover that infants and toddlers are a lot of work, reduce the amount of sex had (for a couple years), and are a lot less “fun” (though often joyful…). So… there’s a strong tendency to split. Find someone new, unencumbered. Repeat this process enough and you get the epidemic of lonely old people we see in western societies. Even married couples tend to have problems adjusting to kids. The woman’s body often goes to hell, for months if not forever… having kids is a great thing, don’t get me wrong, but almost no one will do it for kids who aren’t theirs. A lot of women also peak in their late 20s and men in their late 30s, so there’s that mismatch, which can fuel jealousy. Some people out there appear to experience no or very little jealousy… with the Internet, they can find each other and also proselytize for open relationships, in a way that wasn’t possible before the Internet. The Internet lets us learn things and share them widely and also anonymously, and we can learn things we’d never publish in a newspaper or say on TV. 

In my own case… I’ve liked f**king around… and as I point out in the book, “open” relationships, “poly,” sex clubs… they’re a way to f**k around while retaining the girl, or the primary girl, cause most girls will want to define the relationship with the guy they’re f**king, relatively quickly. They’ll want to “lock him down” if you prefer that terminology (I often don’t, but girls use it). This is a way to keep a girl around, offer her super exciting experiences, but still have some of the prowl. For a guy who wants to be a player, this can be a powerful ideology and frame. I don’t want to pretend it doesn’t have huge costs, though. Many “poly” advocates are simply delusional about its costs, particularly in terms of family and children. Human societies are organized around family and kinship for good reasons. We’ve spent the last bunch of centuries trying to reorient around strangers and material goods. This has some good things associated with it but it has some costs, too. We’ve decided to elevate the individual over the family or community… which has some nice features… and some bad ones… we’re almost never willing to even state directly that this has happened.

There’s an argument kicking around the evolutionary biology communities, that intelligence didn’t really evolve to solve problems or be objectively “right,” but to form group coalitions and support a given narrative. That may be why “intelligent” people in an IQ sense may be better at self-delusion and maintaining narratives than less intelligent people. We see this especially in places like politics, where most people prefer tribe to knowledge. High-IQ poly people can convince themselves and sometimes others of their narrative, without having the desire to question their own narrative or discover what’s “underneath” it. The higher their IQ, the more “reasons” and rationalizations they can come up with. And many of those reasons are real… in specific circumstances. 

Poly is probably bad for societies, because it creates male winner-take-most systems. But as people become more individualistic and ever-less connected to family and place, we’re seeing the rise of alternate relationships styles. Like old-school Roissy used to say, “enjoy the decline.” Or figure out how to make it work. And there are also plenty of chicks out there who aren’t participating in the modern mating game… but they’re not the ones on the apps, out in bars, etc. They’re probably already in a relationship and meet men through family, school, and friends. They’re the girls who, if you’re not serious about a relationship and family, will disappear right away. Who will stick around if you’re not? That’s where the game comes from.

 

What does “quality girl” mean?

Online, there is endless discussion of how to seek out and identify “quality” girls, whatever that means… “quality” in a girl is tricky, since most girls, like men, have some good and some bad points. A lot of guys who think they want “quality,” who say they want “quality,” really want to convert a hot sexually adventurous slut into a housewife (rarely works well, but give it a go if you like… please don’t come whining to the Internet if it doesn’t). If you go for girls who are -1 or -2 relative to you in sexual market value (SMV), you can probably get a girl who will invest heavy in you… if she’s not that hot, though, you won’t want her. A lot of guys “want” a girl who is hot, a sex fiend (for him and him alone), absurdly loyal (perhaps not demanding fidelity in return), mentally stable, has even-keeled personality, and perhaps has other desirable traits too. Girls who combine all those qualities are not that common, and they tend to have a lot of suitors to choose from. This is the male equivalent of women who want a guy who is over six feet tall, makes a lot of $$$, has good social skills, prioritizes her and her attention needs, etc. etc. These guys too exist, but in small numbers, and they tend to have lots of options, which they often like to exercise, vigorously and horizontally.

Sometimes vertically, too, for the sake of variety.

A lot of girls aren’t honest about what they really want… superficially they say they want a “relationship” (with a top guy, which is unstated), but in reality their behaviors indicate they want to get f**ked a lot (by a hot guy, or when they’re horny). “I got drunk and it just ‘happened'” is not the statement of a girl who really wants a relationship. Thing is… a lot of guys aren’t honest either. A lot of guys aren’t truly working to improve themselves, and their results are consistent with that. I tweeted a while ago, “most guys don’t really care that much about getting laid.” If they do, you’ll see them quit video games, prioritize the gym, eat no sugar, and do the other things common to guys who get laid, as opposed to guys who don’t, or guys who say they want to but don’t align their behavior with that stated want. Continue reading “What does “quality girl” mean?”

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

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

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

She’s not a policymaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I see dating, girls, COVID-19, and the quarantines, right now

Girls don’t seem to be coming out on dates, although it seems that most people ages 18 – 40 are either asymptomatic or have relatively short or minor disease progressions. What’s going on?

I think most chicks are wise to avoid going out with new guys, for the most part. 1. It’s true that the fatality rate for people under age 50 or 60 seems to be very low. But. 2. Some larger number people under that age have a long and miserable course of disease, with lots of coughing, lung pain, and difficulty sleeping. We don’t know the true percentage yet. It looks like it’s low (we can see that from the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where there have been or are at least 940 confirmed cases so far), but we aren’t sure yet. Furthermore, 3. lots of people interact with parents and elderly relatives… myself included… and I’d like not to be the vector for their demise, as would most girls. 4. Lots of girls in their 20s have moved back in with their parents, and those girls have left the big cities where they typically congregate in order to pursue sexual adventures with adventurous men. 5. Most girls who are at least a high 6 have a couple of background guys as insurance… any girl with a brain has picked one to be her “quarantine buddy.” Yeah, her quarantine f**k buddy. Her sexual adventurism is at low ebb… for good reasons IMO. The risk of meeting random new guys is much higher than it was. How high? We don’t know yet. She’s already gotten one of her background guys to be her mainstay for the next few months, so she’s not on dating apps if she can avoid it.

Continue reading “How I see dating, girls, COVID-19, and the quarantines, right now”

Diminishing returns to “learning more game”

There are diminishing returns to “learning more game” or “improving your game.” Average or below-average guys who begin learning game (they improve themselves and their value-delivery mechanism) see rapid improvements. As average guys move away from being average and spend more time with women, they lose their ridiculous views about women and learn that women are people too and have their own set of reproductive, social, and sexual challenges. Women make many mistakes in the dating game, but low-level guys are blind to many of the mistakes, and to many of the feelings women feel.

Once you learn the models, you maximize your own value, you sort out your psychology, you do the things you need to do, you start seeing the results… you will probably run out of room to grow. Male-female polarity is very old. The game is very old. The growth of feminism and changes in birth control have, however, led men to need to discover, or re-discover, game in each generation. Optimal game today is not precisely what optimal game was in 2000 or 1980 or 1948… social media and phones have layered some nuances that didn’t exist then. But the fundamentals remain.

I don’t think there is NOTHING left to discover. There are new ideas left. The big ideas in game, around body, fitness, health, style, male-female polarity, eye-contact, accepting rejection, gentle teasing, escalation, push-pull, hot-cold, demonstrating higher value… I get them. I don’t implement them perfectly and have many f**k ups of my own. New guys need to master them of course.

There are aspects to my game that could be improved. My cold approach is actually not that good. Usually I rely on something observational, which is not always the best way to go. But, like I said, it has been “good enough.” In the last ten years, it’s been pretty rare for me to feel desperate.

This is also why I think I will end up not writing much more here. There are aspects of the game I can improve… but they are not that big and I don’t care much about them. When the skill has been mastered, execution becomes more important than study.

It’s been a while since I’ve been truly surprised by something a woman said or did. Unfortunately, I also have persistent, annoying injuries that prevent me from doing all that I’d like to do in the gym. That shows up in body terms. I’m still above-average, far above-average for my age, but not where I was or could be.

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

(Adapted from the book.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dating during coronavirus: Not convinced online will work

A fun red pill story about a 41-year-old single mom doing online “dating” (really: attention seeking)… she says that she has “to really like someone to make time for him right now”…

While my kids play by themselves in their room, I swipe through Tinder and Bumble. One guy asks if I want to sit six feet away from each other and have tea. It’s a charming idea, but I have to really like someone to make time for him right now. This guy doesn’t make the cut.

But, also, she says “Men without kids are very quick to dismiss women with kids”…

I text the therapist to see if he wants to reschedule. I think he’s going to ghost me. Men without kids are very quick to dismiss women with kids. I have to work twice as hard to prove to someone that I’m half as cool as their other prospects.

The author of course doesn’t see that her having “to really like someone to make time” is the female side of guys without kids being “quick to dismiss women with kids.” She is doing to men the same exact thing she is complaining about men doing to her. She is doing Facetime “dates.” I’d call them “attention-seeking endeavors.”…

I wait for him to FaceTime. It rings. He’s there. He’s cute, and he’s made himself a turkey sandwich. Unfortunately, he’s got a high voice. It’s actually kind of squeaky. I can’t with the voice … but it’s a fun break from my day.

A high, squeaky voice, and so he’s out. She’s quick to dismiss a guy because she doesn’t like his voice. Her ex husband is her ex because “Aside from being a great provider, and a pretty good dad, he’s let me down in many ways. He can be very emotionally distant, and he’s not particularly nice to me.” “Emotionally distant.” WTF does that mean? She lives in Tribeca, a ritzy, expensive part of New York. He lives a few blocks away She probably married a rich guy with options because she liked the security of his job… but he had options… and he exercised them. “Rich” is really rich… like millions… but her money… it’s not enough… “I’m feeling lonely. It’s such a cliché, but during this scary time, it would be nice to have someone to hold me.” She’s lonely but can’t/won’t take the actions necessary to get away from loneliness.

My guess is that she’s seeking attention from men who are as lonely as she is and hornier, and that she’ll sleep with her coparent again. Tinder failed last time I tried it. I can see the appeal, while daygame is dead, of trying online and doing a direct-to-apartment date appeal to girls to try smoking out some of the horny ones. “Facetime dates” seem retarded to me. Maybe a short 10-minute Facetime call makes sense… “let’s move to Facetime and see if we like each other.” Ten minutes there. Chit-chat, a little game, ask her over, move on if she’s a no. Women know there’s a surfeit of men to sponge attention from and men are happy to provide.

I link to a lot of these sex diary stories by women cause women are so damn red pill it’s funny. Their self-awareness is ultra low. Regular readers know that chicks are random. Probably that is a key game takeaway, especially for guys getting started or coming off bad streaks. I have had 6s and even 5s act like I am a cretin when I have flirted with them… girls who affected an air of being above my station… and I have had 8s who act like they are lucky that I am willing to f**k them… the difference is often in the chicks, not in me.

If you are trying online and want to write up a field report about it, do it and send it in. I bet daygame works great when this is over. Massive party.