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.

 

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”

Curiosity leads to sexual freedom… and threesomes… and storytelling

I was reading a good book about storytelling, A Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger Life, by Brian Glazer (the hollywood producer) and a journalist named Charles Fishman (red pill dad on storytelling). It’s narrated by Glazer… and he has good advice for players… like, “Most of the best things that have happened in my life are the result of curiosity. And curiosity has occasionally gotten me in trouble. But even when curiosity has gotten me in trouble, it has been interesting trouble.” I should list some ways curiosity has gotten me into interesting trouble, but a look through the archives will yield a cornucopia of material… when “Libido Girl” first proposed a sex party to me, I was curious, and many years later I am still involved. Glazer says he is “not the least bit embarrassed to ask questions.” A guy should be the same, although, with girls, it’s often better to make statements or assumptions. Don’t ask, “Did you get a job making coffee because you like coffee?” Instead, “I bet you got that gig so you can flirt with the sexy customers.” As the conversation evolves some questions are fine & normal, but too many questions to an unresponsive girl feels like an interview. Some girls, however, are bad at flirting and non-responsive… but if she keeps complying despite being boring, you might find her complying all the way into bending over for you.

Continue reading “Curiosity leads to sexual freedom… and threesomes… and storytelling”

Why Twitter’s Brooding Sea is likely a faker, and some other musings on the top of game

The other day I went on a Twitter talk about how you shouldn’t believe everything you read, and then I stopped being oblique and said there’s a “daygame” twitter account under the name “BroodingSea” (BS) that is likely… creative… in terms of its relationship with the real world. Another  daygamer guy asked privately why BS is unlikely to be a good role model, and why I think he is, if not necessarily fake exactly, then not telling us everything. There are a bunch of reasons… 1. His results are too good. 2. His supposed pickups are way too good/smooth. 3. He seems not to get any of the negative streaks other guys do. 4. There are almost no details in any of his stories. While it’s possible to get “yes girls” who like you / are horny at that moment / fuck you with much game on your part, they are rare (in some respects this girl had that quality… it can happen). At some point Nash or others called BS out on how unlikely his stories are, and then he began integrating more supposed “failures.”

Put all those pieces together and the bullshit siren should be going off louder than a Marine Corps drill sergeant the first morning at Basic. Unfortunately, BS disappeared, so we’re unlikely to see further revealing statements from him. He may have made the mistake of using some of his primary contact information in online profiles… always go with the burners… despite the improbability of his stories I don’t support doxxing, including of people I disagree with.

So what was going on with him? It’s useful to ask this question because he’s not the first and won’t be the last guy with extremely improbable stories. Most likely, one or more of of several things is at play… 1. He’s paying / using some money in his “game.” I don’t think this is bad (if a guy wants to do it, fine), but he should say as much and describe the role money/payments play. If he has sufficient money to pay, he can get a lot of lays that way, particularly in eastern europe, or with eastern europeans online. A lot of girls who are in the partial escort market have a sliding scale in their minds, where the more masculine/attractive the guy is, the less he pays (not all girls… some are super professional… using some money may also allow him to generate the unique pictures that can be claimed as daygame lays). Years ago I did something like what BS may be doing, for $500/mo…. in a number of ways I got lucky quickly… and I probably shouldn’t have done any money transfer at all… but I did it and it should be admitted for the sake of completeness. Back to BS, 2. He’s probably mostly online, with great pics, and getting girls who are much less hot than he says/implies (I have slummed it at times, usually when I’m horny and some girl shows up who’s less attractive than her pictures but also requires minimal work… not proud but it’s true…). I think he posted a pic or two of himself in which he appears to be jacked. If those pics are honest, he’ll be able to get girls -2 or -3 relative to the ones he should be able to get from the real world. 3. A bunch of his stuff is just made up. You know how people in real life who are full of shit often tell skeleton stories, and when you ask follow-up questions, you can see that they’d never considered an obvious point? Brooding Sea’s stories look like that. Some of them might be authentic.

Continue reading “Why Twitter’s Brooding Sea is likely a faker, and some other musings on the top of game”

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.

Things Red Pill and pickup get right about men and women

A guy asked me about what I think is true and useful in red pill, since I’ve written out some criticisms… it’s a good question… I thought about it… and came up with some answers…

1. Women (mostly) get their value; men (mostly) earn their value

An attractive woman who doesn’t eat too much sugar and isn’t ridiculously lazy gets a lot of social and sexual value as a teenager, and that value stays with her well into her 30s (where it can drop suddenly… a lot of women are surprised by the drop). She doesn’t have to do much to get and maintain her value. Men, by contrast, mostly have to earn our value through achievement. “Achievement” can mean a lot of different things.

“Mostly” is key because there are exceptions. Women can squander their value, and some get screwed genetically, and some get screwed behaviorally by their families (if your family feeds you a bunch of garbage simple carbohydrates and sugar, then a lot of the value will go away or never arrive). Some guys have great physical attractiveness and that works with women, for a long time, without great effort… a few guys get a lot of value without having to do much work for it. There are exceptions but the overall correlation is clear.

2. Most guys don’t understand women.

By failing to understand women or what women want/feel, most guys screw up their game.

3. Women are attracted to winners.

What “winners” means can mean a lot of different things to different women… but a guy who wins at something is going to do better than a guy who doesn’t.

4. Family courts in the United States are set up to attack men

Family courts take men’s money and children away, and there is very little a man can do to stop that process. Real world divorce should be required reading for any man contemplating marriage.

5. Schools are biased against men

Same as #4, but with schools. Parents need to resist schools’s desire to medicate boys, especially younger boys. I don’t want to spend too much time b**ching about bias… the solution to bias is to work harder than the other guy… but it is real and exists.

6. Men are performance oriented.

Video games are poisonous because they give the simulacrum of performance with none of the outcome from the real thing (as a side hobby they can be okay… for a lot of guys they are not a side hobby). “Performance” can mean lots of things, so this is similar to #3.

In terms of men and women “performance” is usually measured by, “are you f**king the chick?” If you f**k her… that is an unambiguous performance success measure… because it’s unambiguous… a lot of guys prefer softer, squishier metrics.

7. Game works. Pickup works.

The game and pickup practices work, if a guy is willing to put in the effort and practice. “Works” will vary by guy… a guy who is male 4 is still unlikely to get female 7s… but the tools are available for a guy to improve his sex and social life, relative to where he starts, if he wants to… most guys don’t, not really.

8. Chicks are usually more passive, and guys need to be more active

Especially with sex/dating, guys need to make the first move… and make things happen… most chicks will accept or reject offers and do little to move things along for themselves. Men create civilization, women live in it (and raise the next generation). Magnum likes to say that women veto. When I was younger I thought women were kind of like defective men because of their inability to propose things, plan, and execute. Now I realize that different isn’t the same as defective… if you expect a cow to be a dog you will usually be disappointed.

9. If you work, you will get better.

This is not a strictly red pill idea, but red pill guys emphasize growth and growth mindset over static/fixed mindset. Trying hard and practice matter. We influence our own destinies, and the harder we try, the more we influence. “Influence” is not the same thing as “100% control…” we are all somewhat restricted by the circumstances of birth, family, genetics, etc. But within those parameters, the people who work to seize control, get more control. If you believe you will fail… you are probably right… if you believe you can’t change… you are probably right…

10. On average, differences between men and women exist

This is pretty straightforward… you can overemphasize differences (a lot of red pill/pickup guys do) but you can also underemphasize them (media is super guilty of this).

Red pill dad has a summary of “basic red pill things.” I think the distinction in #4 is rarely clean cut… and I think #9 is mostly untrue… but the others I mostly buy.

I’m sure I’m missing things… but there is little game happening during the pandemic, so we get more speculation and fewer field reports… I have speculated that the pandemic will change the game… probably by making chicks more k selected, and less r, on average. When we have a lot of money, low disease burden, and extra resources, we can afford to f**k around a lot more. Cross-subsidies in relationships don’t matter as much. Can the woman not cook, but she’s good in bed? That’s okay, order takeout. Can the man not earn, but he’s hot and a practiced dom? That’s okay, she’ll get a job of her own. When we see incomes collapse and uncertainty rise… we’ll see more k. The opposite, more r. That’s my guess… it could be wrong… and it also only takes a few outliers for a “trend” to feel wrong, even if it is overall correct.

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.

Priorities and what you bring to life

Women who prioritize families and long-term relationships, and who have reasonable expectations of the men they date, get married and have families and do their best to stay married. Those women are out there, but they’re not much discussed among the red pill / seduction / masculinity communities because they’re mostly invisible to us… Red Pill Dad and I have a conversation in his comments section about these issues, and I’m reminded of “Katie,” a woman I knew years ago, when I was in my early to mid 20s (she was, and still likely is, a year or two older than me). Probably a low 8 then… slender with no rack, so maybe she was a high 7 with a pretty face and pretty blonde hair, and during our friendship / interactions / flirtationship, she said she hadn’t had sex until she was in college and had had sex with 3 – 4 men by the time I met her, all in a relationship context. She was in a long-distance relationship, and I kept angling to get her into position to make my move, and she kept successfully angling me away, while keeping me in her friend orbit (we had some mutual things in common that kept us around each other). Good sexual tension between us. Eventually I did my move and she said no, hard, firm, and kind, although her long-distance relationship died of natural causes sometime after that. Tried again and she said no. Why? One, she was a year or two older than me (she didn’t cite that though it makes sense), but, most importantly, she knew I wanted to be a player, not her boyfriend.

A part of her liked me and the sexual tension, but her conscious forebrain knew what I was about and that I wasn’t going to wife her up. Katie also came from a rich family and I think had excessive income expectations. We had good physical chemistry and made each other laugh… she was bright, too, and had a bubbly personality, and when a guy is potentially offered quality champagne it is hard to turn it down for whoever’s next, since the next girl might be watery beer. I bet she was/is good in bed. She had strong sexual presence yet I don’t think she was going to unleash her sexuality outside of a relationship. I telegraphed “player” and also had uncertain earning potential and she knew that, and chemistry was not going to get in the way of her large goals.

Katie married the next guy she dated, or the one after him. She’s not on social media very much and never has been… to the extent she is, she’s depicted with her husband and family. No or little politics, no or little posturing. At that distant time when I knew her, I wasn’t properly strict on the “no friend zone” thing, so we kept in touch longer than we should have… I say “longer than we should have” because our professional life goals diverged, and our personal life goals were never aligned (I wanted to f**k a lot of girls and she wanted a secure family, that being the opposite of her family growing up). We had personalities that meshed in some ways but we didn’t have enough in common to sustain our connection, and I wanted to spend time f**king girls, not hanging out with a pretty girl I wasn’t going to f**k. She tried to hook me up with her unattractive friends… as usual, her attractive friends had boyfriends already. One of them was insultingly overweight, so maybe my estimation of her estimation of me is lower than I have been portraying.

Today, she’s been married quite a while and has three kids… and looks amazingly good for having had three kids, although she has the slender body type that handles aging really well, even if she was never a high 8 or 9. Could have had a little work done on her face. A lot of stunningly curvy women droop early, while some of the slender women who are less hot as 22 year olds grow into themselves. I’ve slept with women who are less attractive than she is after three kids (you probably have too).

We never know what will happen, maybe Katie will have a change of heart and dump her husband to go do the f**king around she didn’t do when she was younger. Maybe her husband will turn her in for a younger model… life is unpredictable and I don’t know her anymore and haven’t truly known her for a long time. It’s also possible she’ll experience the deep satisfactions of seeing her family grow. It’s further possible she doesn’t have the much-discussed hypergamous disposition. If a player stopped her on the street or flirted with her in a bar, she’d probably laugh at him, or indulge him for a few minutes then say, “No thank you.” Players wouldn’t get far enough with her to make her memorable.

Stories about chicks who f**k a bunch of dudes really stand out in the mind, like stories about terrorism. Terrorism works at generating publicity because of the way the human mind works, even though you’re statistically more likely to die from excess sugar consumption, opioids, or cars. Stories about women cheating with 10 random dudes are more interesting than stories about women who thought about it but didn’t. The guys whose marriages go through a rough patch and then recover have much less need of red pill and seduction than those guys whose marriages dissolve. The guys who grow up with a good family and robust social skills have much less need than guys who don’t. Etc. “Selection bias” is real. I bet Katie’s husband doesn’t spend a lot of time online and doesn’t spend it in these Internet precincts. Why would he?

In red pill/seduction/masculinity communities, you’re disproportionately surrounded by guys who picked the wrong woman, probably without realizing what they were doing, and without the context to understand that you can’t make a hoe a housewife. You’re surrounded by guys who were cheated on, divorced, etc. Guys who grew up with single mothers, or with fathers who were weak. Guys with deficient social skills. That’s reflected in the worldview being generated by these guys. The male equivalent of the women whose sexual market value (SMV) mismatch problems have made them bitter towards men.

If your father ever taught you much about women, perhaps he told you a similar story…

More likely, however, he didn’t. Mine didn’t.

And if I had to guess, there are a lot of guys out there like me who had perfectly good fathers (in every other respect) who never really taught us about women in the way they taught us about the sea, hunting, fishing, cars, sports, etc.

The guys who are in (basically) happy marriages don’t have much to say because they’re not out hitting the streets chasing strange puss, and they’re not looking for deeper answers after seeing half their incomes diverted to their former spouses, and their former spouses’s new boyfriend. The guys who are true players probably have good social skills and gym routines and would find much of the anger and hostility online to be strange and off putting (as I suspect a lot of the red pill / seduction guys are in real life).

Katie realized correctly that I wanted to be a player, not her husband, and she reacted appropriately. I have met women who realize I want to be player but give in to their desires, and then find themselves frustrated when I am not interested in helping them pursue their reproductive life plans. Smart women mostly don’t make these mistakes, or, if they do, they have their month of fun and then jettison the fun sex guy in order to pursue the monogamy provider guy.

Most essentially, women who want monogamy find it. They don’t live in New York City, or in the big expensive party cities. They play no games, or fewer games than women who are addicted to interpersonal drama. If those women recognize a guy who does the things they want… a provider, a good earner, loyal, willing to commit… they will latch onto him and work to keep him. As they should. They will suss out who he is. Does he want to have a family sooner, or later? Does he have a good relationship with his own parents and family? Etc. They talk about their own desires to get married and have a family, since those desires can scare off players. They will bring other skills to the relationship than sex.

For a contrast, look instead at the 30-something female journalists, usually fat, who write about how there are no good men out there. Those women prioritized their careers over their families and chose to f**k fun-loving bad boys who didn’t want to commit. Then, as their SMV declines with age, they want to get out of the market, only to find out that their SMV is declining, and that they’ve practiced few of the skills that make long-term relationships work. They have lived lives that are largely the opposite of Katie’s, and they lack the self-awareness to understand what they’ve done or take responsibility for it. They have a lot to write about because they have to write something new every day or every week, and their failure to recognize how male-female sexuality works means that they can’t find the obvious principles underlying their decisions.

Let’s look at one description of modern women, “many, if not most women have become self-publishing soft core pornographers, posing with their asses in the air or wearing scantily clad bikinis or semi nude in their bedrooms making duck lips–those bored ass eyes, sexy and yet soulless.” I doubt this has ever described Katie or women like her. Plus…

women have a burden too–unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for those of us who are players), it’s become extremely reductive in modern society: be attractive (enough) and give sex. That’s basically it, and as many players have noted, this seems to be the only thing most women today are capable of providing. Maybe why I get so excited when I come home after a girl spends the night to find my bed made or my apartment tidied up.

I think Katie brought a lot more to her relationship than f**king, and I bet she selected a man who brought a lot more to the relationship than just money, or just decent sex. In this way she is like Anna, another girl who fits the “not very sexually adventurous” mold, although Katie is prettier than Anna and better than Anna overall. I’ve met plenty of women who bring little to the relationship apart from sex and I mentally tag them accordingly. They are the women who want to know why guys just want easy sex from them… and they are the kind of women who don’t want an honest answer to that question. A guy who has problems with the entire opposite sex usually has true problems within himself, and the same’s true of women. As guys interested in seduction we learn to improve ourselves. A lot of women don’t have those same self-improvement voices in their ears.