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?”

Why you can’t trust drug claims, and what that says about the ability to trust in general

This is an even nerdier piece than usual, and it’s fundamentally about trust, verification, and science… try reading the Peaches saga for something fun, sexy, and actionable…

Game is an open field: it has few definite answers and doing it poorly has few short-term consequences. Drug development is different: it has more definite answers, although the answers happen amid a lot of noise, and has many important short and long-term consequences. Politics is closer to game than to drug development, but it’s not a perfect overlap, since failing or succeeding at game has a strong impact on a given individual… while most political opinions are meant to signal tribal allegiance, and being wrong has little impact on the individual. In the last three+ months there have been lots of dumb claims about how hydroxychloroquine “obviously” works.. and yet we’re still looking for that evidence, which seems less and less likely to exist. The more interesting preliminary commentary was out there, best summed by Derek Lowe… April 6, March 31, April 16… no bullshit and written by someone who knows a lot about drug development… his comments about preliminary studies with small sample sizes are accurate… the early studies showed that hydroxychloroquine didn’t seem to badly hurt anyone (good), but we have law of small numbers problems. The smaller the sample size, the easier it is to find a significant effect through chance. An early and bogus French study was done by a guy who is, to put it uncharitably, frequently full of shit. Yet a lot of guys writing in the game / red pill / right wing worlds went for him. Why?

Those guys often don’t know anything about the field and, in addition, they don’t know what they don’t know. Lots of drugs look promising in vitro or in murine/ferret/etc. models, then fail in humans. Evaluating data from coronavirus is tricky, because most people do recover. It’s possible to give 20 patients the drug and then see most of them recover, because they were at the stage in the disease where they were poised for recovery anyway. These kinds of problems are how and why double-blind trials showed up in the first place, to distinguish cause from effect. These are also the kinds of problems that lead many people to falsely believe in all kinds of cures for colds and flus that were on the verge of clearing up anyway. By now, we know that a large and real trial from the UK with 11,000 patients found no benefit to hydroxychloroquine. France has also suspended trials like this one. A trial of 821 patients didn’t show hydroxychloroquine acts as a prophylactic. Yes, there was a study published in Lancet that was withdrawn due to phony data: but other data is consistent with the “no benefit” hypothesis. In other words, the guys you read on Twitter proclaiming that hydroxychloroquine is an easy win were all wrong, and they were wrong in predictable ways.

A little knowledge is dangerous and most of the people on Twitter know zero about statistics or the history of drug development… they make the same mistakes homeopathy people do. Their conspiratorial mindset flares up. They have no skin in the game: they’ve heard of Nassim Taleb but failed to internalize his lessons. If their recommendations turn out to be correct, they announce how right they were. If their recommendations turn out to be false, they say nothing, or cite the one “maybe” weasel word they used, somewhere. If you can’t trust them on something that has known correct answers, how can you trust them on things that don’t?

Meanwhile, people with skin in the game know that most drugs fail. Twitter has its uses but taking drug recommendations from it is nuts. Then there are Twitter exchanges like this one:

Stedman may know something about men and women (a field with limited opportunities for falsification), but he doesn’t know shit about complex systems or about drugs, and he too doesn’t know it. He doesn’t want to learn, either. People have been trying to get Vitamin C to do something for decades (seriously, Linus Pauling initially made up the idea that vitamin C helps the immune system). Chaga is fine but it’s also been relentlessly studied. He’s a sort of Gweneth Paltrow and Goop for the red pill set: mostly harmless but also overconfident and making unbacked medical claims, relying on the ignorance of his followers. But if he’s wrong about something that can be falsified… what else is he wrong about? He’s also a conspiracy theory guy. And he has a large enough platform that he should try harder not to mislead his readers.

On Twitter, the ignorant are often loud and the most knowledgable often quiet. The ignorant have nothing at stake. Sometimes they are right, too, which is gratifying, when it happens. But what general lessons should we draw?

People are susceptible to showmen. Arguably the game is about becoming a better showman (Mystery was literally a showman: a magician). But the natural world doesn’t care about the show, like the human world does. It’s very reality-based. When dealing with women, some men fail to realize that the show can be more important than the reality, under current social and cultural conditions. When dealing with the human body as a system, the show doesn’t matter… the reality does.

There is a problem, I forget the formal name of it, in which people who have expertise or intelligence in one field, think they know all fields. Their knowledge or expertise doesn’t transfer, though. It’s limited. That’s one way people who are otherwise smart, make stupid mistakes. Stedman doesn’t even realize that what he’s pitching has a long history… he’s making a common mistake but doesn’t know it, and, when I pointed out that he’s wrong, he ignored and muted me. Fine. In terms of the drug world, politics makes people stupid and, oddly, people who know that then accuse others of it, not realizing that they themselves are subject to the challenge.

Meanwhile, here is yet one more piece, an older one, about HCQ not working in late-stage patients, which matches doctors’s anecdotal evidence. That HCQ wasn’t working well in moderate and severe cases became apparent by late March/early April, yet we still saw many on Twitter touting its efficacy… how many docs are writing to game, red pill, or far-right twitter… probably not a lot.

There is an interesting question in why otherwise smart people fall for myths, conspiracy theories, etc. I don’t think the whole answer is there, at the link, and I don’t have a full answer, but self-deception seems to be super common. Stedman falls for it. So do many others.

A gear switch. In game: it’s very tempting to lie to yourself first, but guys do well if they do one of two things: lie to themselves to the point of incredible, delusional confidence (“frame” if you prefer that term), OR be relentlessly honest with themselves about their strengths and especially weaknesses. The human propensity to lie to ourselves seems strong, and in medicine this seems like a particularly powerful tendency. We like to see patterns in randomness. Small parts of humanity have spent the last few centuries trying to learn how not to lie to ourselves. The internet does lots of good things, but it also allows the ignorant to be amplify their ignorance, without realizing their own ignorance.

One logical counter is to say, “Experts have their own problems,” and that’s completely true: but experts being wrong is notable and intersting, while non-experts being wrong is the norm, and many of them don’t even know what they don’t know.

It’s possible that the thousands of people wrongly amplifying their messages will learn something from this… but more likely they won’t. We have centuries of knowledge about how to test drugs already, and one more example of being wrong probably won’t convince anyone, anymore than the homeopathic holdouts can be convinced. Ignorance is the human condition, knowledge the exception. Game is one kind of knowledge, but it’s an imprecise kind. You can be great at game, or a great showman, and know nothing about scientific or technical fields.

There are problems with how to test drugs and other health treatments in the United States… but the noisiest people haven’t been repeating them, mostly. Their knowledge level doesn’t extend that far, and something closer to the truth, doesn’t make it to tweets.

We probably won’t learn much from the hydroxychloroquine debacle, since the people falling for it mostly aren’t or weren’t doctors prescribing medications. Everything I wrote above about statistics and drug development is well-known to people who work in drug development or have learned about drug development and how it works. Everything I wrote above about those topics will probably never be known to people with no skin in the game, no knowledge of statistics, and no downside to being wrong. They were wrong yesterday and will be confidently wrong about something else tomorrow.

Knowing what is really true is hard, which is why it took humans so long to build the civilization we have today. Most of our existence has been spent in superstitious blather. That tradition continues in homeopathy, anti-vaxers, and Twitter.

Most people who think they have secret knowledge are deluding themselves.

In some fields, there is a definitively right answer and a definitively wrong answer. When guys wander into these fields and say things that are likely wrong, or at least unwise, there is a tendency, maybe unfair, to denigrate their knowledge in all other fields.

It’s good to know when you’re part of a show and when you’re part of the study of reality… and a lot of guys online don’t distinguish between the two. Trusting noisy Twitter has its dangers.

“Call Her Daddy” the podcast, and what guys should take from it

Listened to CALL HER DADDY because of this, and the podcast feels more legit than expected… for example, they refer to “Metoo bullshit” in one episode… normal people who like f**king, see “MeToo” as a power play by feminist harpies in the media and academia, and by older women who want to stigmatize the hot sex lives of young one. Most chicks realize that f**king guys in authority positions, like bosses and professors, is hot… if it’s consensual… normal guys don’t try to make chicks do things the chicks aren’t into, and normal guys feel out whether she’s into it… the small number of crazies on both sides ruin things for the rest of us. Especially crazy feminist harpies.

I wonder how much of the CALL HER DADDY audience is actually female and how much of it is guys jacking off to hot chicks talking about their sex lives… they talk a remarkable amount about making and disseminating sex tapes. Are the hosts posturing or for real? We have all heard hot girls loudly talking about f**king at parties for male attention. I’d guess a lot of their “show host” mode is a persona, like most entertainers. Not saying this is bad… just pointing it out… a lot of entertainers make it look like it’s easy, when it’s not. The number of people who can build a podcast audience is way smaller than the number who’d like to. Despite being ostensibly pro sex, the CALL HER DADDY hosts do a lot of slut shaming too… the number of girls who are truly pro sex is not huge, not even today.

In the episode “Every Man’s Achilles Heel” the hosts cite the joy of bondage and how a guy’s familiarity with bondage and restraint sets him apart from other guys… ahem… as you should know… one of them says adding a blindfold “took it to a whole f**kin’ different level…” during sex… a blindfold! That’s it! I conclude that a lot of guys are dumb or just ignorant… I feel like I learned this shit ages ago. Sex skills for guys are still sorely needed.

Continue reading ““Call Her Daddy” the podcast, and what guys should take from it”

What the thinking escort is thinking

From a funny tweet, “I’m not doing onlyfans because I need to I’m doing it because I’m slutty and I like money.” It got me thinking, past what I’ve written before… there’s probably some truth to that woman’s rationale… the good/psychologically sound strippers/escorts I know, or have known, get in the business because they like f**king a lot anyway and often like doing it with strangers. They’re like, “I could make a million bucks doing this part time, and I’m already doing it anyway.” Clients are usually older than the average guy they’d hook up with on their own, but some aren’t, and some are pretty decent in bed. A sex worker is really an amateur psychologist who also f**ks… her job is to figure out what the client really wants (often not what he says at first) and deliver it. A lot of regular consultants do this too, but bring a different skillset to the table.

I have probably met more girls who are sex positive and highly sexed, and mentally unblocked about it, than the average man has, because those girls often find their way into the sex-positive community and into sex clubs and sex club culture (sometimes clients bring them as dates). For a lot of these girls, they want to f**k a lot anyway, aren’t very interested in monogamy, are open to experience, and like sex adventures. If a woman likes those things anyway… she might as well get paid for them… like a guy who likes programming computers on his own time will also discover a robust market, and be pleased that he can get paid for stuff he’s doing anyway.

These chicks aren’t super common, and for the most part they aren’t completely flaunting who they are. Very few chicks, even sex positive ones, will announce they’re into sex work, or that sex work turns them on.

They can do math…. let’s take a woman who works as as sex worker from age 20 – 30 and she is hot and decently good at business. She charges say $500/hour and $2000/night in a big city. She works one night a week, and for the sake of simplicity we’re going to count each month as consisting of 28 days, so she gets a few extra nights off. She gets two one-hour sessions and two overnights a month, on average, so that’s $1,000 and $4,000 a month, or $5,000/month, or $60,000/year. Times ten years, that’s $600,000. She might also pick up some tips and some fringe benefits, but she also has to pay for fancy lingerie/clothes/etc. Some costs involved. She’s not quite made a million dollars in the four times/month scenario but if she’s enterprising and willing to work a bit more, she can get to that million pre-tax dollars.

Few normal men want to date sex workers (I bet you would never have believed that…). There’s some sex-worker talk out there about how sex work isn’t real sex and doesn’t count… we can safely discount that hamstering because of course to most normal men it “counts.” If she’s out f**king for money, then to balance the reciprocity equation, he needs to have his piece of the open relationship… and sex clubs are a way of achieving that. So sex workers who are highly sexed to begin with, will often also seek guys who are already versed in open relationships.

The majority of sex workers probably come from stereotypical f**ked up families, desperation, poverty, etc., and they realize that sex worker is more lucrative than other kinds of work, but it takes an emotional and spiritual toll that leads a lot of women to drugs, if they’re not starting from there. All professions have a culture associated with them and sex work, like music or anesthesiology, has a drug culture associated with it. So there’s a lot to be said for the messed-up stereotype, but I don’t think the sex work makes the woman messed up so much as she arrives at it already messed up.

Mostly I’ve been describing the psychology of the mentally healthier sex workers… the less mentally healthy ones are really dark, and often not very bright… bright women realize that sex work is a time-limited activity… and it’s hard to do well… scamming men is especially dangerous.

Obviously this is not very relevant right now, since I bet sex work is pretty dead, because of the risk and the unemployment rate (among clients). In a bad economy, hiring sex workers is one of the first things to go… and other girls flood the market simultaneously, although I’m not sure that’s happening right now. But… what’s happening cannot go on forever, so it won’t. I don’t think it can even go on a year.

Guys have to be pretty determined to want to hire an escort. Chicks have to be pretty determined to take the risk. A lot of the kinds of chicks in their 20s who would form the bulk of the industry are living with family right now, if they can. The ones who aren’t, aren’t paying their bills, cause evictions have been halted in a lot of places. But we’re going to have to re-start the economy sometime… within two years we should have a vaccine… some fundamentals will remain.

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.

The dark side of denial and dishonesty about women

I feel a lot of ambivalence towards this skeevy story Teen models, powerful men and private dinners: when Trump hosted Look of the Year, cause the authors get some of the story… but it’s a story about dishonesty, and dishonest people, and the authors are dishonest too… the guys running this supposed teen modeling show thing are obviously just trying to get sex, but they’re putting on this dishonest veneer of modeling. The “models” are trying to get money and their big break and pretending to not be basically selling sex, which is what all “models” do (just without the act itself in the case of the handful of really famous ones who don’t need to). The authors are dishonest by pretending not to know that men and women are different, and that no one understands what’s really going on, when almost everyone involved does.

The “men and women are different” thing is shunted away from most teens by our society and education system, despite its obviousness… men want more sex with more different women than women want with men, and most women want it with men around their own age (some women also like much older men but almost none like younger men). But we’re unwilling as a society and culture to say, “men and women are different” and then to teach girls how… most attractive women eventually realize that almost all straight men want to have sex with them, and would if there was a way to do so. This power intoxicates many women and frightens others. Most learn to accept it, and then rue the day it departs.

A lot of the “models” in that story… had probably absorbed the wrong story that we present… unless their parents (more likely parent) told them the truth, as most parents don’t. Not directly. The lie that “men and women are exactly the same and want the same thing” is most dangerous to younger but post-puberty teens, who often don’t really understand that they may be desirable to many men… have you ever seen or heard a fight between a girl and her parents, with the parents saying, “Don’t go out in that,” and the girl saying, “It’s fashionable and I’ll do what I want, f**k you”? The parent is really saying, “You are sending sexual signals to adult men and they may respond to those signals,” and the girl is either saying, “I’m not really doing that” (she is), or she is saying, “I want to be sending out sexual signals so I can get the attention those signals bring.” And maybe more.

The parent-child misdirection is a lot like the misdirection in the “Teen models” story, where the guys are misdirecting what they’re doing (trying to have sex with young chicks) and the girls are misdirecting what they’re doing (trying to trade sex appeal for money) and the parents are often misdirecting what they’re doing (“this is a great economic opportunity…” the economic opportunity of trading attractive and sex for money has a name… I am not opposed to this business but let’s be real about it is, why don’t we?). And the authors hate Trump. I am not a Trump guy but I am a reality guy… and there is too little reality in this story.

The thing is… a lot of young girls are ignorant and their society and parents (often parent, no dad in the picture) have made their ignorant… I know from talking to the 18 – 22 year old models in particular… chop off a couple years and the ignorance is more profund. Parents aren’t doing their jobs. Education institutions aren’t doing their jobs. In a world of bulls**t, to speak the rare truth is a profound act.

These media hit pieces never stop to look a little bit deeper and to think a little bit more deeply and cross culturally. One book, by a woman named Judith Levine, a journalist, was totally controversial and no one wants to talk about it, least of all the writers. Age of consent varies wildly by time and place… take Rome,

The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage.

Most of you have probably not noticed that I haven’t been making a “right” or “wrong” argument in this piece, except to say that subterfuge is wrong, and we should be more honest about our intent. That includes the authors of that teen models story, who can’t come out and say that men and women are different and women need protection from carnal males, which is what they’re getting at. Their feminist indoctrination has them tied up… “men and women are always equal” on the one hand but also “women need special protections,” like religious Christians would say, on the other. They can try to make women the “victims,” however, because feminism also holds that all women are oppressed… and frightened lambs… who are subject to those big bad males luring them into temptation… does that remind you of anything, like Christianity?

I dunno. I read this story and think that there is a lot of blame and bad behavior to go around, and there is also a lot denial. There are also some girls from a surprisingly young age who are locked and loaded and ready for sex. I know cause I’ve met the adult versions of them, who tell me what they were like at young ages. I’m not nearly as sex-negative as most of the society. I’m aware that our current ideology and culture finds that Women don’t think that women can make adult decisions and be held accountable for those decisions. Then feminists are all like, “why aren’t women taken seriously at the upper echelons of corporations?!?”… they can’t imagine their own rhetoric and positioning has anything to do with it. Almost no one will ask what age of consent laws are really doing, or ask why it’s cool to prosecute male teens as adults for many crimes while announcing female teens are children when it comes to sex. Kinda weird when you think about it, right? But we don’t need to think about it… we just need to write that Trump is bad.

There is no real takeaway from my writing here. I think that taking these girls away from their families and their sources of strength/protection is bad. I don’t like all the subterfuge: obviously, the guys running these programs are trolling for sex and have set up a system to attempt to acquire it. I feel bad for the young chicks who genuinely don’t know what’s going on. Some of them probably really don’t because they’re young and naive. Their parents and teachers don’t level with them. It’s like giving a 15 year old boy a million dollars… how many 15 year old boys are going to be responsible with that cash? Not too many.

If you present as an adult… people will often treat you as an adult… whether you’re a woman, running a consulting company, whatever. If you present as a kid you will be treated like a kid. Presenting as an adult leads to entry, maybe premature entry, into the adult world… it is not smart for teen boys to talk s**t to adult men, although some do… it is a choice that can be made for teen girls to present as adults… but no one levels with them about making that choice. I don’t think much is going to change this dynamic. The historical and cultural forces supporting bulls**t are too strong. Feminists like having legal and cultural cudgels to hit men with. Parents want kids who are docile and not emotionally distraught because of erotic energies. Women want agency for the good things, like getting better jobs, and want to be victims for other things. It is very rare for women in public life to admit this dynamic… someone like Camille Paglia does… but she is a rare bird, one easily ignored by journalists, who have great capacity for self-delusion.

In the time of coronavirus we’re not on the streets and we’re not at the party, so the more boring posts will have to take the place of exciting real-time stories.

What to learn from famous guys, acting over the long term

I’m interested in what we can learn from famous guys, the actors and athletes and musicians, and how they structure their romantic lives, and you can see that interest in rambles like “When you’ve done it all, what then?” Those famous guys can get every kind of woman they want, and a lot of them spend a couple years laying out a lot of women. But… most of them wind up with long-term girlfriends and most of them even marry (then a lot of them divorce, like everyone else). Adam Sandler, to pick one example, could still be in the game as much as he wants… instead, “Movies shoot in summer, so he can bring his kids to set. During the year, the workday is arranged to allow him to drop them off at school and pick them up.” This is not a guy trying to max out his body count. Lots of other famous guys, guys who could have whoever, also don’t seem to be trying to max their body counts. What’s that mean?

I’m thinking about this because being in the game is many things, and one of those things is amplifying normal ups and downs. The highs can be very high but the lows very low. And I think about the highs because, as with drugs, loving the “high” too much can be dangerous, particularly for older guys. Building a peer group is important for almost every person, and guys into the game seem to also be alienated loners, often struggling with our own pasts, presents, and personalities.

There is something to the idea that “Age is just a state of mind.” To the idea, “You’re only as old as the woman you feel.” There is something to those things. But there is also something to the idea that, over time… doors do close. Lives change. People change. Peer groups change. Paul Janka hits this on the Torero podcast, and he says he got out of the game for a bunch of reasons, including that his friends were hanging up their pickup spurs and getting married.

I don’t really have a place I’m going with this. I’m thinking aloud. I also think that some people, guys and women, like the sex club thing as a couple because that allows the intimacy and partnership of a relationship with the novelty and ecstacy of the chase and new partners. The most successful couples in that world still put each other first. I bet a lot of the Hollywood guys, the musician guys, who get into long-term things have a little something on the side now and then, but they put their primary person first. The famous guys have problems with loneliness and meaning, like the rest of us. Maybe worse, in some ways, because someone always wants something from them (women know what straight guys are after, too). I know that if I stop hustling, very soon, no one but my real friends and my family want anything from me. Parts of the human conditions are real dark. We can try to understand it, but we cannot overcome it.

Think about girls, too. There is a lot of red pill talk about hypergamy and girls behaving badly. There’s some truth to that, too. There’s also some selection bias. I don’t want to repeat the whole thing but… “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.” “The women who react to street pickup are probably not a random sample of women, so drawing conclusions about all women can be dangerous.” Same with the women you meet online. I know some women, some of them very hot, who have never done online. I also know some women who did online for a very short period because they wanted a long-term relationship and when they found a guy who they like and who is reasonably within reasonable parameters, they stuck with him. Those are the kinds of women who are repelled by player vibes.

Game, at its best, allows human connections to flourish, “I will confess… the two ‘bottomed out’ periods of my life coincided with me backing off of game. I’m not certain the lack of game CAUSED those periods, I don’t think that was true… but game is an organizational force in my life, and I realize the utility there.” At its worst, it is guys trying to extract value, and extracting it from women who know what’s going on and are maybe attracted to that kind of thing. Trying to maintain that positive mindset can be one of the toughest things in game… and in life, in the face of adversity, rejection, etc. It’s something I struggle with. One way to contextualize struggle is to look at what others are doing and how they are dealing with the same conditions. Rich famous guys are different in many ways from normal guys, but not totally different, and we should think about what they choose to do.

All dogmas are to be avoided.

Passionate love and companionate love for guys

Got some feedback on this, “Short Dancer, maybe the last girl I was in intense love with (while ago now),” and it seems to be off-brand for me, based on the feedback… but the reactions have alerted me to some oversight… there are at least two kinds of love, passionate love and companionate love (may have got the terms slightly wrong but the idea is right). Passionate love is in the intensely erotic and sexualized love that often characterizes the beginning of relationships, crushes, etc. It’s intense, all-consuming, like a drug, etc. Companionate love is closer to friendship, involving kindness, compatibility, similar values, etc. These two are not completely exclusive… it’s possible to find someone highly arousing but also companionate. Or companionate but also arousing, if you like that better.

They don’t have to go together.

But they can.

I may have misjudged Short Dancer, because I thought she was more hypergamous and more interested in being an experimental s**t than she might be in reality. It’s hard to say because I don’t know a lot about what she’s really been up to, so for all I know she has a secret side guy besides her official guy. But she seems to be more interested in monogamy and a steady relationship than I thought (unless there’s something I don’t know)… but our experience together was primarily passionate. Very passionate.

Passionate love is wonderful… it’s also not very sustainable… after you’ve f**ked a woman hundreds of times, passionate love will probably begin to decline as you acclimate to her and her to you. What’s left when the overwhelming drug exhilaration goes away? Until it does, you don’t know… you probably can’t know… you’ll probably be blinded by her beauty and the feel of her p***y… a lot of the better long term relationships with kids can start with passionate love and decay into companionate love. Not impossible for that happen. But it’s also possible that most women with whom you experience passionate love, are not suitable for long-term relationships. And some women who are great for long-term relationships don’t generate the most intense sexual passion.

“Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills have some overlap but a guy who wants to f**k a lot should focus on the first set of skills, not the second set. Lots of guys have neither set of skills and just take what they can get. Probably the majority of guys, in reality. Most guys writing about the game focus on pickup… as they should… it is hard to have a satisfying long-term relationship without having options and without knowing that the woman you’re with can leave and you’ll be okay. Women prefer guys who the women know can get other women. Guys are going to have lots of trouble having good long-term relationships with companionate elements unless they can pick up chicks.

I’m bringing this up because it’s possible to have a long term relationship with family and kids with a woman who goes from passionate love to more companionate love. It happens, yes. But… a lot of divorces, nasty breakups, etc. happen when someone, or two people, mistake passionate love for good long-term compatibility. Short Dancer was a great passionate love but I think the age gap and other factors made us unsustainable… beyond that, I wasn’t quite looking for that kind of thing at that time.

A lot of broken relationships are founded on passion, and male desperation. Almost all regular romantic/sexual mainstream advice focuses on companionate relationships… those are fine, but the advice is almost always half-blind. I don’t emphasize companionate relationships because the commentary on them is so readily available… but almost no mainstream advice focuses on maximizing passionate relationships… or is even comfortable with talking about them. Players are rare because we value passion and strive to create it in both men and women, while the mainstream seeks to tamp down and deny passion. I want to acknowledge passionate love… but also acknowledge companionate love, here and now. Companionate love can exist without you reader personally wanting to engage in it right now. Get lots of passionate experience first.

In many good long term relationships, passion decays gracefully into companionate love… in a lot of bad relationships, the need to chase passion predominates. One interesting question to me is whether some aspects of non-monogamy can square that circle. Not perfectly, but a little. I’ve seen people do it.

If the relationship is too companionate, especially for younger women, she’ll get bored, and we know that Boredom = death. But women vary in how easily they’re bored, how hypergamous they are, etc., and women who aren’t easily bored are better for long-term relationships. Some women are also incapable of companionate love. I have met women in their 50s and 60s who are still chasing the D like teens.

I’m in favor of being in love. Love is fun. I’m against marriage but in favor of love. You can also love a chick w/o being monogamous.

Advertisers can’t sell products with companionate love, for the most part, so we see passionate love depicted. But companionate love is a thing too.

Many players and s**ts love passionate love and will eliminate partners as the passion subsides. If you commit to a woman while you are in the throes of passionate love, you are setting yourself up to fail, and a lot of guys do this, then post online about how chicks are evil, while taking zero responsibility for their own actions and choices.

Most of the mistakes I write about, like mistaking passion for compatibility, are mistakes I’ve made.

Putting the girl into the friend zone: a kind of mean story from college

Many guys are used to stupidly putting themselves in the friend zone, sometimes even saying that the girl has friend-zoned him when that is not possible without the guy’s consent… but it is also possible to do the reverse, if you have sufficient SMV, and something like this happened to me in college. I made it happen, sort of, without knowing WTF I was doing at the time, like the sorcerer’s apprentice playing with magic. There were a bit more women than men at my school and that led to some good things for me, including meeting this girl, Holly, at a house party, because she was wearing a short skirt and had a nice body while she was dancing. I made out with her but didn’t have good logistics locked down… I should have tried to f**k her in a quiet nook but I didn’t have the escalation skills or daring I do now. I tried to get her back to my place but her friends stopped me/her.

Next night we went to dinner, came back to watch a movie, f**ked like animals instead. I was 20 and Holly was 18/19. The f**king continued on a daily or twice daily level… she was not a great talker or thinker… not then anyway… I’m not sure what we talked about besides school and gossip… but she sure did love to f**k and that was great. Guess we didn’t need a lot more. Short Dancer was a little like this too.

So Holly and I f**ked a lot but were always hard-up for logistics because of our living arrangements, her in a dorm and me in a shared house. So we got creative and f**ked in a lot of places. Holly had two roommates at the time, one a weird girl, maybe asexual or something, the other a friend of Holly’s and part of a larger group of like 10 – 12 girls who hung out together. Holly’s roommate Sarah was like… a 4? Even at age 18/19. Not due to exercise, but perhaps due to horrible diet or just bad genetics… I feel bad for those girls… there is very little they can do to improve their SMV if the genetics are weighted that far against them. Unlike men, they can’t even substitute achievement and income for raw sex appeal.

Sarah was well frustrated by being young and horny and surrounded by college guys… while not being very attractive and not able to even be flirted with by most of the guys. She was also frustrated that she was out of my kill zone and I was busy f**king her sexier roommate as often as possible.

Sarah offered threeways pretty early on, while drunk, and I turned her down using some moronic reason that was not the truth. Sarah would basically sexually harass me, and I’d laugh about it as she felt up my arse or abs. Holly would also laugh, and now I think there was a bit of dominance play between them… Holly knew Sarah was not a threat and never would be. So Sarah would get her little bits of excitement… but not much else. Friend zone, but for girls.

Eventually I did let Sarah give me blowjobs, with Holly in the room, and then f**ked Holly, telling Sarah that I was addicted to and only interested in Holly’s p***y. A kind of lame excuse, but… I was young and stupid? I hadn’t been seeing Holly all that long but had already f**ked her many times when all three of us came back from a party and I let them blindfold me, then I had to guess who was going down on me (couldn’t tell). When I got tired of the game I said that I needed to f**k Holly and told Sarah to masturbate… and then hold my balls when I was getting close to finishing, and as I finished… it was a turn-on for me but in retrospect it must have been kind of humiliating for Sarah and I’m not sure why I did it that time and a number of times after, except for some ego trip. I should have kept clearer boundaries… but when you have the power… it is tempting to use it… that idea explains a lot of random chick behavior… most guys lack the experience to understand it, having never had substantial sexual power.

Holly had a sliver of time between a class of hers and Sarah coming back, when her dorm room was free for sex, but we had to be quick about it to beat Sarah… who knew that after she found us lounging and breathing heavily… which made her hustle back earlier… and then I told her to hold my balls while I finished in her roommate, so we got into this pattern, one that she liked too much. Not sure how many times we did this sort of thing, probably 8 or 10… not all the time but often enough. Most of our friends saw us f**king at one time or another… college is an interesting time to discover exhibitionist tendencies, since a ton of single people are crammed into a small space, making the market super thick and interconnected. And it meant a lot of walking on other people having sex, or having people walk in on you having sex, then pretending to be embarrassed about it, when it was a turn-on.

I should have said no to Sarah altogether. Holly was among the hotter girls in her friend group, and many of the other girls were fine people, just… not very hot.

Among the hotter girls but maybe not the hottest  in the larger group of girls there was another girl, also named Holly, who knew a bit about our adventures and came back from a party with us one night to have a very nice threesome, although my primary Holly was angry about me raw-dogging Holly #2 (who was bent over and going down on Holly 1). This was also one of my early experiences with girls cheating, as Holly 2 had a boyfriend at another school and she claimed she broke up with him the next day. At the time the cheating I saw confused me… I thought girls didn’t really do that? It was one of the early experiences that made me question the feminist educational system and common culture claims. I can be dense so it took me a lot longer than I want to admit to realize how common cheating is among women. Women are smarter about cheating and much quieter about it than men are.

Men want everyone to know they can get p***y, women want no one to know that they deviate from the monogamy society script.

Holly was very high libido, the first woman I can recall with a higher capacity for sex than me. Would get very horny within like 30 seconds of kissing. Fondle her tits? She’d be ready in a minute or two, desperate for it a few minutes after that. Her whole body was an erogenous zone. She was great… just not quite as hot as I’d have liked her to be. Not quite all the way there. But she loved sex, liked me, and was uninhibited about her love of sex, which was very nice… still is very nice. Some women never get over the sex negativity that’s instilled in them by the culture. Some are just really fussy and their fussiness becomes too annoying to deal with.

Holly #2 was a solid 8. Very hot. Holly 1 wasn’t very bi but would kiss and touch other girls… Holly 2 went further. We had 2 – 3 drunken threesomes with her… I was in the weird position of chasing one threesome while trying to push off the other, with Sarah… then I got Holly #2 alone for some very hot sex. Hot for both of us. She was a curiously reserved girl who I never got a handle on. I knew her even less than I knew Holly 1. I think Holly 2 was a bit of princess/primadonna and saw me as socially and sexually proven by Holly 1, plus once I had f**ked her once I didn’t “count” as a new lay and therefore made for a fine person to experiment with while she sought a boyfriend. Or let one find her. I don’t think she expended energy or effort dating… just picked from the guys in front of her. Even in an environment numerically stacked against her I’m sure she did fine.

Unfortunately, Holly #1 knew I wanted to raw dog her and she had a thing against BC, and back then IUDs were either unavailable or not as common as they are now. She was sufficiently drunk to let me a couple times, but then would regret it later that night or the next morning, leading to strife between us. A summer intervened, and we were too far away from each other for easy visits so we had a kind of “don’t ask don’t tell” thing, except that neither of us articulated it… I worked a job that gave me a lots of access to pretty girls, and I don’t remember what she did that summer except that we didn’t talk that much. She wasn’t a great talker or an intellectually interesting girl, but she f**ked great.

Back at school again Holly #1 realized what was up at some point, although nothing dramatic happened like her walking in on Holly #2 and me. She did walk in one day and ask point blank, “Are you f**king Holly #2?” Young-me decided on the brazen defense and was like, “Yeah, of course, you were there for it.” Of course Holly hadn’t agreed to me f**king her friend on the sly and that was it for us, although I tried (and failed) to get her back round for some easy late night hookups. I also didn’t have any of the context for non-monogamy that I do now, so I was a dead dog. I understood very little of what was happening… that is why I try to be compassionate to younger guys… most of the time they are running on instinct and subconscious.

Holly was a clean no-contact girl, made easier by the fact that our friend circles and social lives had pretty much no overlap. She must have gotten to Holly #2 cause she disappeared as well.

Like most young guys, I had no idea what was going on and was stumbling my way forward. At the time I had no true understanding of women and thought I had gotten lucky and stumbled into some nymphomaniacs or something. Now I realize that Holly #1 was just a pretty open and adventurous girl and she was looking to keep me happy, and Holly #2 was kind of similar but also didn’t want to be with her (high school?) boyfriend anymore.

I’d also been flirting with another girl I knew through a school club, so when Holly departed I immediately tried that girl, who came over for beer and a movie and wanted to know about Holly me and when I was like “We broke up,” she practically purred. Getting her to actual sex took a bit more effort and more than one date cause she was one of those “everything but PIV sex” girls, but she was amenable to persuasion over time. She was also the hot one of a group of less attractive friends.

Both Hollies got other boyfriends and I heard almost nothing from either them again. I believe Holly #1 married the guy after me. Both Hollies have kids and live in suburbs now, from what I can tell. I don’t know if Sarah ever got to feel another guy’s balls as he finished inside a different girl, or if that was just one of her crazy college experiences, the kind she won’t tell her future husband about. It’s bad to humiliate people… and I think I did that… somewhat… but in the moment we do things we regret later. Making the forebrain and hindbrain 100% congruent is hard… if not impossible.

Responsibility and later seduction. Internal congruence

Another topic that gets no play in the Red Pill and seduction communities, cause most guys don’t get to this later stage, it is not good to trifle with women who are heavily investing in you. This damages the woman and while it is psychologically appealing to the guy (it’s nice to have the attention and desire you can return… or not), but it creates bad feelings and outcomes. Power over women who invest happens after the guy gets game and deploys it effectively, meaning that most guys never get it and this post is not for them, so this subject confuses them, like stories about a culture they’ve never visited and can’t believe exists.

I know the logical counter to this point (about the wisdom of refusing or discouraging investment that won’t be reciprocated)… “But chicks do this all the time!” True, true. But mature chicks don’t encourage male investment and male suitors who don’t interest them. Immature chicks… greedy chicks… they will, and that’s why so many younger guys have problems with the “friend zone” and perceived female uncertainty. Younger guys don’t follow the algorithm and don’t effectively sort girls into ones who might f**k and ones who won’t. I didn’t either when I was young & stupid, not to worry. I was afraid of “no,” when “no” is a gift, a gift of my time & attention so that I can direct them consciously into better things.

Mature guys… also don’t spend a lot of time and investment in women who are unlikely to be lovers. If a woman isn’t interested… the guy withdraws and finds a woman who is. Many chicks, if attention and gifts are foisted on them by inept men, will accept those… but if you are foisting gifts on a woman who hasn’t earned them, then you kinda deserve what you get. Immature guys believe gifts and attention should be rewarded with sex… when it’s actually closer to the other way around. No one in our female-dominated culture discusses to this.

This gets me to my point… when a woman’s emotions and sex habits are connecting and converging into you… it is not good to trifle with her, lead her on, and jerk her around. You will damage her, and inflict needless cruelty, and for what? If you have decent game, the sex part may be challenging, but it shouldn’t be infinitely so.

Some dysfunctional women prematurely invest when they shouldn’t, or they can’t help themselves because the man is unusual and matches their interest, or is much higher SMV than they are. If she does that… it is not your fault. But you should let go, want to let go, chicks who are deeply converting but who you don’t fancy in that way. At least tell them that you’re not going to be their boyfriend but can be their lover. Set expectations.

This is emerging from my own experiences and from conversation with a player who is interested in non-monogamy and who has found a woman who has also been searching for this her entire life, searching for a way to reconcile mind and body, emotions and physicality. Like libido girl and a number of others I’ve met, she craves the novelty of new sex… but wants a relationship too. Most guys, if they advance from casual sex into something more structured with a woman, won’t want a woman like this (they really want a woman who will be monogamous to them). There are a lot of pretend non-monogamous guys, and even more strictly monogamous guys (when you get down to it). Women who are sexually adventurous but with hearts and the desire to pair-bond… it’s actually not easy for them. Even with monogamous women, their real, true, and full investment is intense. For the bulk of guys who have never experienced the intensity of female emotional and sexual investment…. this issue will be invisible. Like “how to end it” with a woman. It’s advanced stuff. Beginners mistake compassion for weakness. Don’t worry, I did too, once.

I’m against being mean to people. Yes, women will sometimes be mean to you, they will try to take value from you without giving it in return. Yes, it is sometimes appropriate to be mean to people, or direct in a way that is seen as mean. But what is perceived as mean or cruel is often just a balancing of the scales of value.

Notice what I am NOT doing. I am not arguing against casual sex (it would be funny if I did, given my history). I am not arguing against deepening relationships with women. I am not arguing that women are innocent damsels (they are not, and the innocent damsel trope is a lie men tell themselves in order to be p***y… in the real world, almost no one is “innocent”). “Beyond casual sex” is more fun than just f**king strangers in my view. But… I am arguing that it’s bad for you and for the woman to let a woman deeply invest in your and convert to you, if you don’t set expectations, or if you plan to just let her dangle. Cut her loose and let her invest in someone else. The world is already harsh and full of bitterness…. no need to make it harsher and more bitter. It’s bad for the man’s subconscious. Keeping your subconscious aligned with your accessible consciousness is a part of frame, a part of being congruent that, again, no one talks about. Low status guys, f**ked up guys, are incongruent, and their low value and incongruence messes with their inner game. Higher-status, higher-class guys maintain congruence and have a keen sense of loose equality in terms of value given and value taken. This is getting a bit on the “hippie” side of things, about consciousness development, but I think that’s where the the higher levels of game live. Levels a lot of guys never hit, cause they can’t get past the lower levels.

Most women, by the way, never access higher levels of consciousness. If they do, they are already post-wall, and it is too late for them to access those levels via sexuality. Most younger women rely on men to get them there, and most men disappoint. That’s part of the reason we see the discord we see.

Seek for the higher levels. Discourage investment where it’s not warranted. If you see signs of her emotional investment, decide consciously if you want to respond in kind or keep her at a distance. The beginning parts of the game are important but so is the middle and end, where few guys live and where almost no guys writing online discuss.

The more time you spend around women, the more you realize most of them are basically irresponsible and want someone else to make decisions for them. This is why we have the crazy Title IX man-hunting tribunal in the United States and why so many women distance themselves from their sexual choices. This is also why so few women make it to the top of corporate and other hierarchies, because an individual has to be intensely responsible for his choices if he’s going to be a leader, not just a follower—something that most women can’t do. Men who have a lot of experience with women also learn that most women like to follow and so men are reluctant to put women in leadership roles, for good reason. Almost no feminists will admit this, leading to the absurd statements about women in companies that shrieking harpies propagate in the media.

I actually have no problem with women running companies or whatever, but I don’t think you’ll ever see as many women in leadership roles because it’s contrary to baseline female psychology. If a woman wants to be responsible for a large company and has the personality and intellect to do so, then that’s dandy. It’s just unlikely. Most women want men to take responsibility for them… and when she lets a guy into her soul, and then he chucks her aside, she’s wounded. Try not to let her do that. A guy who starts off low status might want to be mean, as revenge… but he’s really taking revenge on himself, for putting up with behavior he shouldn’t have. No reason to do that. The world is hard enough.