Saw Ms. Slav last night for her birthday. And it was good.
Bike Girl ended a year ago, and I’ve already forgotten most of the details of the end… I wish I’d started writing the blog sooner, as many of the details around various chicks have faded away. There is no substitute for writing very close to the events as they happen in real time. Everything becomes abstract and mushy, given sufficient distance. I’ve been encouraging many guys to write their players journey blogs, and the value of fresh material is part of the reason why… the value of random search engine traffic is another… mostly you should write for yourself, but the fact that you might reach some other poor suffering dude is a nice bonus.
About Bike Girl, Anastasia asked on Twitter, “Have you heard about her after?” Not too much: little bit here and there… we kept fucking for a while after the breakup… but really we are too different. She is more looking for a guy who is kinda chill and matches her, or a guy who will take care of her (likely financially)… I am neither… she wouldn’t put it that way, though. Fort Worth Playboy asked, “How would she frame it?” A good question. I think she’d frame it as I’m a jerk and a player who takes advantage of her. I pretend to offer girls one thing, then don’t follow up on it. She was ready to move to the next stage and I cruelly ditched her. She is pretty enough that she can find guys who will happily commit to her… she has a few in her orbit… like so many chicks she’s most into a guy who won’t commit to her room, board, and upkeep. I’m a little harsh in the last sentence, as she did have a job when I was with her. But only a little harsh.
I think I confuse some chicks, because I don’t really read as fuckboy (contra this, which reveals more about the quality of Low-cut top girl’s mind and thinking than it does about me), but I also don’t really read as monogamous “good guy.” So chicks don’t really know how to categorize me… The ones I get along with, aren’t bothered by this. The chicks who are happy doing something a little different than the standard categories (e.g. consensual non-monogamy), often like me quite a bit because they get to be different. The ones who want the usual are often flummoxed. The ones who like me are okay thinking in shades of gray, rather than black and white. In conversation I ask a lot of “Why?” and “How do we know that?” and “Are we certain of that?” kinds of questions. Not in a mean way… I don’t try to use them as cudgels… but in a searching way… and girls who are searching like those questions… girls who already know everything don’t like them very much.
I think you can tell which kind of girl I like better. The chicks who are happy doing something a little different than the standard categories (like consensual non-monogamy), often like me quite a bit because they get to be different. Chicks who like rigid categories need to find guys who fit in those categories.
I hope Bike Girl is doing well. I could ping her again… last I heard I believe she was dating someone. I wish her well… but she is going to have a tough time trying to get a “got it all” (looks + money + charisma) guy. She can get a guy w/ one or two of those, I think. She seems like the kind of chick who will keep looking for the “just right” guy, as her 40th birthday sails past and her fertility window closes. I know some women who just stay on the shelf too long… it’s sad, but common. Maybe increasingly common. Our idiotic culture tells women that she should HAVE IT ALL. Stupid. But almost no one “has it all.” Not men. Not women. No one in our culture tells men that we need to “have it all.” I wonder why.
(That last statement is sarcastic.)
With the blog, Nash says, “I can tell by the way you write that pieces are ‘fresh,’ they aren’t stewed-on for weeks… and I appreciate that about your writing. I want to do more of that.” Some of them I sit on for too long… not all, though. I’m a fan of the 12″ MacBook and similar computers for their portability… got an idea? Pop in for coffee, execute it, move on. It’s amazing how far tech has come… laptops used to have to be big and heavy to be functional… now they don’t. By the way, don’t buy a 12″ MacBook the day this is being published in May 2019, as they are overdue for an update.
I was tempted at times to start the blog earlier, but I didn’t because I knew it would suck up more time and energy than is desirable. As a consequence, many of the details have faded; looking at my writing from just one or two years ago shows me as much. I remember previous girls, that they existed, a few things about them and about us… but not the stuff that speaks to how it really was. Strangely, my habit of making sex tapes provides many of those details for other girls. One of my favorite girls, I haven’t written a lot about here, but I think about her a lot.
She was likely a high 7 / low 8, principally due to her youth and hobbies (dancing). For whatever reason I connected with her strongly, but she did not want to do what I wanted to do (sex clubs), and I let her go. I wonder if I should have stuck with her longer… of all the chicks I’ve slept with, for some reason she stays with me the most. One of the early times we fucked, probably the third or fourth, at the end of it she sighed happily and said, “I needed that.” A little moment… a minor one… one I would have forgotten if not for the video… but the way she says it… it’s nice, like a few seconds later when she said that she’d been thinking about seeing me all day. She sounds so satisfied. Very satisfying to me in turn.
Sometimes I leave the camera on for a while after the sex, and the conversation after is tremendously interesting. I think people are more honest and less guarded right after fucking. I didn’t realize that making fuck tapes would catch some of those moments. Come for the smut, stay for the talking.
I have some more stories I need to finish, but I don’t think they have much in the way of real learning points, so they don’t seem urgent. I have been doing a bit of cold approach, but not in a good or consistent way… my head space has been bad for that, and it shows.
One way to assess your life now is to try and think about where you might want to be in ten years, then take daily steps towards wherever that place is. Chances are, you should want some aspect of your life to be different in ten years, but what aspect that is will vary by the guy. I’m thinking about this because I’m pretty sure that, in ten years, I won’t want to be doing what I’m doing now. But what should I be doing instead? That’s the key question. For a long time, chasing chicks has basically been my sport and hobby, and a lot of my life has been oriented around that activity. Things that support that goal I pursued, and things that detracted from that goal I mostly avoided. I’m okay with where I am right now, but I don’t think I want to be in the same place ten years from now… which means I need to think about what changes I should make.
This applies to guys in a lot of situations regarding women, sex, etc.:
- If you’re 20, in ten years you’ll probably still want to be in the game.
- If you’re 30, ten years out you might still want to be in, but you might not.
- At 40… maybe so, but I start to wonder about that.
I observe that, the older people get, the more their families take priority and the less they care about a lot of other stuff, possibly including getting laid by the widest array of new chicks. This is an “on average” observation, so maybe you are different. In addition, I think many people go through life epicycles of 5 – 10 years. So someone who does monogamy or, much worse, a marriage from age 25 – 40 may get out of it and want desperately to f**k around for a couple years. A lot of people need to have sufficient variety in their life to make it intersting, but not so much variety as to destabilize it.
I have been dealing with some injuries, and I have been of course been observing the people around me. The older people I know who have families are almost always more satisfied than the ones without. I think we need the right, productive kind of struggle to live satisfied lives. For a long time, the right, productive kind of struggle for me has been in the game, with all of its attendant challenges. The important question is what should happen next. Some advice generalizes well to guys in all states of life (lift, stretch, maintain physical well-being, read books), but other advice is more age- and context-specific.
Some guys want to chase chicks till the moment they can’t anymore. If that’s you, that’s fine… one time I thought it would be me… now I’m not so convinced.
“Selection bias” is the shortest possible version of this list, but let me give the longer version too. There are many good, revelatory ideas in the Red Pill and seduction worlds, and these worlds are better than the default many guys learn in school. Any system or ideology will have its blind spots, and real life is much more complex than any ideology.
1. Most of the guys involved seem to be or have been failures with women; this breeds a lot of resentment and unhappiness, and some of those feelings never seem to abate.
2. Guys who have successful relationships with functional women don’t seem very likely to end up writing for the Red Pill. Guys who get cheated on, dumped, etc. seem much more likely to end up reading the Red Pill, looking for answers, and venting on it. Guys in successful relationships (they do exist) never enter, or glance at it before moving on.
3. Red Pill guys overstate hypergamy, female mate competition, etc. The larger world and culture UNDERstate these topics and forces, however. The reality is somewhere between the poles.
4. Contemporary feminism is bad but it also has less relevance in most people’s every day, day-to-day lives than it does online or among a small coterie of humanities professors.
5. Many of the leading guys have some pretty serious things wrong with them, or wrong in their psychology. They can be right about a lot of things and there can still be significant problems that show up, intentionally or inadvertently, in their writing.
6. The women who react to street pickup are probably not a random sample of women, so drawing conclusions about all women can be dangerous. I’m not arguing you shouldn’t do street pickup (in actuality I believe the opposite), but those who respond to cold opens are likely not representative of the broader population.
7. In many cases (not all), you’re learning things from (relative) failures rather than successes.
8. All dogmas are to be avoided.
9. It’s not possible to separate out the true players from the keyboard jockeys.
The biggest upside of the Red Pill is that it tells guys that we have to improve, we have to up our game, we have to protect ourselves, we have to generate value, and the world is not fair. You will often be fouled and the best solution is often to accept the foul and focus on mission and improvement. You can complain or you can improve.
If you study and practice seduction, you will also learn what’s possible. Many average guys think that only a tiny number of athletes, musicians, etc. get peak sexual experiences with top chicks. That’s not true. Such experiences are open to a very large swath of guys, if those guys realize what’s possible and work towards it. I admit that I made this error myself. Until relatively late in the game, probably around age 30, I didn’t fully realize what was possible. I did well from my late teens to mid-20s, but I didn’t fully realize what is possible until much later.
I’m also the kind of person who wonders about why things are the way they are, and it was clear to me as a teen that what I was told about sex, sexuality, and women by the larger society was not the whole story. The Red Pill and seduction communities are much closer to the truth than the conventional social narratives about mean, oppressive guys and wilting, innocent women. Women are much more sexually charged than is commonly portrayed and many guys never learn this.
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.
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 makes sense from an evolutionary and cultural perspectives… while 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, and that’s true, it’s also overstated… especially for guys looking for a longer-term chick. A guy looking purely for hookups is all about the hotness. A guy evaluating a longer-term deal will also consider the woman’s own psychology, earning power, etc., as they become much more important in long-term mating contexts. In the modern world, a chick who is out of school and without a job is sending a terrible signal about herself, and she is signaling her dysfunction in a way that most guys with their own shit together will notice.
Furthermore, a chick’s looks will fade over time, but her good fitness / nutrition habits will slow that. Her good work habits will contribute to household finances. Her good mood/positive temper will make her a better mother. Etc. Over a 5 – 10 year relationship that includes having a family, her raw hotness is unlikely to be the most important thing about her, for most guys. Most guys likely have some minimal level of attractiveness, but once a woman has exceeded that, other factors become important in long-term contexts.
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 effectively. Spreading her legs, bending over… it’s good, but it’s also common, especially for the high-status men women most want. So women ideally learn how to cook, at least, and ideally learn other useful skills too… most women appear to underestimate how much that can make them stand apart.
I don’t have great answers to the problems of childbearing and long-term relationships, but because this is the Internet I know I am supposed to be the God-like guru who KNOWS EVERYTHING. I am not 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, and 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.
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.