Delicious Tacos talks to Personality Girl and Default Friend about getting laid and other things

Personality Girl and Default Friend have a hilarious podcast with Delicious Tacos, a podcast covering many topics, including how women don’t (maybe can’t) understand what life and horniness as a man is like, alcoholism, writing, groupies, face, sociopathy, work, and Houellbecq (the key philosopher of the last 50 years, no one else who hasn’t done pr0n counts). My replies are disjoint and won’t make sense without listening to the podcast.

Hot, emotionally mature girls aren’t on the market much and aren’t drunk or snorting coke. Guys with alcohol or substance abuse problems are attracting girls who will accept those, and it’s dangerous to draw conclusions from that biased sample… I try not to generalize too much about women based on the women I’ve been with in the last ten years, because most of them are at the very least curious about or accepting of non-monogamy, while women who want a conventional family and children aren’t going to put up with that shit. Delicious Tacos lives in L.A. (all the normal girls stay out of California). The conversation is a very big city conversation, cause normal girls who want a husband and family live in the midwest, or Texas, or Florida, or any place that it’s possible to live a middle-class existence and have a family… they’re not in the big famous cities. That’s where the sluts are, and the people who can’t afford to have kids, so they might as well do all sorts of weird sex things. I’m one of them, I’m talking about my own here, but I’ve also spent lots of time in smaller cities where women in their 20s walk around with their children in strollers and their husbands next to them. Most of them are 10 – 40 lbs overweight, which is gross, but that’s where they are.

Despite all that I have a piece coming up in the next month or two about how I was dumb to not have figured out mdma earlier in my life, cause, used judiciously, that’s where many of the easy lays are. Lots of hot chicks lack personality, or drive, or the ability to admit the sex they want and get it, and need some external aid to get there. Trying to talk to a lot of hot girls age 18 – 24 isn’t easy, cause their knowledge base consists of inane gossip and an interest in drinking and drugs. That’s it. It’s hard to build commonality from that. Solution? A lot of conversation that uses The Game + insinuations of drinking/drugs now, or in times to come. I should’ve learned this earlier… in many ways I’m a slow learner.

Very true: pussy begets more pussy. Absolutely. Sex clubs are apotheosis of this. DT gets this. He says something like, the difference between 0 pussy and 1 pussy is a million times greater than 1 and 2, and pretty much everything in game is about moving from 0 to 1. Red Quest might be less interesting cause it’s mostly about moving from 2 to a million, via sex clubs + non-monogamy.

Agree that guys who get a lot fuck a lot of chicks, almost all of varying quality levels.

Delicious Tacos should get a counseling degree and do counseling for men. He’d be great at it, and he’d get out of the corporate grind office job, become more of a prophet than he already is. I’d refer guys to him. “You want to get laid, get your life in order? Talk to this guy, Delicious Tacos.” Would he be popular, though? Most therapists seem to need to take 20 sessions to get to the obvious, because they have to wait for the person they’re talking to to get to the idea on their own… I think Delicious Tacos would be like, “Your family’s fucked up, go learn the deadlift, and get in touch with your feelings that way.” If more guys mastered the deadlift and pullup we’d have less need for therapy.

His voice is peculiarly similar to mine, as are many of his life experiences, although I’ve never had alcohol or substance abuse problems… although I have been accused of being a sex addict (DT discusses “sex addicts” on the podcast). I don’t think I am, though, because I usually have some standards, and after I get my fill I go read a book or whatever.

He says that he used to get groupies when he showed his face… but then he sadly got doxxed… I’ve speculated to other guys that, to build a bigger following it’s necessary to show some proof-of-lay and become a public figure. Krauer and Tom Torero did that. Andy from Kill Your Inner Loser has done the same. I don’t think I care enough to want to take red quest to the next level that way, but it’s useful to hear ideas echoed. Like Balaji says, “we’re going to need to build a pseudonymous economy, where over the medium to long term, you separate out your real name, your earning name, and your speaking name. And in fact, you have multiple earning names and multiple speaking games, just like you have multiple usernames at different sites.” Balaji goes on,

Let’s say, for example, you have a large Twitter following, and you boot up a new pseudonym, that pseudonym starts with nothing. And so it takes you time to boot up a new following, that’s a whole effort, that deters a lot of people from doing it, they’re starting all the way from scratch. And I thought about this problem, because the thing is that with cryptocurrency, we’ve actually solved this where you can set up a username and another username and you can use ZCash to transfer money from one name to another pseudonymously.

So money can be transferred, reputation though didn’t seem to be, until I realized that actually you might not be able to do it for followers, which are non fungible, that to say, one person is not, like, the same as the other, but you could do it on a site like Reddit, where you had Karma that was accumulated. And so someone who had 10,000 Karma under one pseudonym just like you use ZCash to transfer digital currency, ZCash was basically like the truly anonymous version of Bitcoin, the truly private version of Bitcoin. Just like you use ZCash to transfer cash from one name to another, you could use ZKarma to transfer Karma from one username to another and thereby a reboot under a new username.

Seriously, that Balaji podcast is some of the best and most mind-blowing stuff I’ve listened to, so go listen to it after you’re done with the Delicious Tacos interview… if you have a choice between long-form Balaji and long-form Red Quest, Balaji is the right way to go, on all topics apart from getting laid. Some people are badass enough to go by one name, sorry to the rest of the Balajis of the world.

Delicious Tacos also mentions that online dating stopped working effectively around 2015, which I’ve speculated about too, “I’ve had some success with regular online dating many years ago, and no success from regular online dating recently, and by recently I mean in the last six or so years. Sometime around 2015 I had enough things going on in real life that I had by then mostly quit.” Search red quest for “2015” or “2014” and you’ll see other examples.

His story sounds like Tucker Max’s (remember him…?), lots of debauchery, followed by some “what am I doing with my life?” desire to start a family.

Delicious Tacos hates his working an office job for money. What’s missing from the podcast, maybe his life? Craftsmanship. Of a physical sort. It’s a topic in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance but more than that it goes back to Plato, one of history’s first big cucks. Craftsmanship can be done in spare time, and it can turn into full-time work. It doesn’t need to be furniture making or whatever. It can be making amateur internet porn. Seriously, some of the top verified amateurs or onlyfans ppl are craftsmen, forever trying to better their last creation. Lack a sense of craftsmanship and life will seem more meaningless than it would with craftsmanship. These people should learn woodworking or whatever. Bookbinding.

The top programmers and engineers are craftsmen, the money follows the craft. Unfortunately, the pussy doesn’t follow the money in their case, unless it’s paid for.

Although many people complain about work, very few live like Mr. Money Mustache and radically decrease their spending. Decrease spending far enough and the need to work goes way down as well. This works best outside of expensive Los Angeles. The problem is often not work, it is spending. DT doesn’t appear to have learned bike repair and physical dwelling repair, as Mr. Money Mustache has… if you hate work, there are ways to structure your life to minimize it. But it seems possible to minimize spending or maximize sex, but it’s difficult to do both at once, or at least I don’t think I know anyone who is really doing it. How big is DT’s circle of control?

Contributing to a larger community, like xbtusd says. W/o community, alienation, etc., and you can only having f**king be your main source of meaning for so many yrs. If you try to spend your whole life chasing pussy, instead of doing some family as well, you’ll likely end up some combination of miserable and, worse, pathetic (“likely”… if you’re the exception, fantastic, you’re the exception). How long it takes will vary by guy… some guys can be players successfully into their 40s or even 50s… despite saying that, if the reader really doesn’t want to have kids, don’t, there are sadly too many kids resented by their parents for merely existing. Someone who doesn’t affirmatively not want them should give it a shot.

How many marry out of tiredness or desperation?

I know a couple people who moved from alcoholism/substance abuse to becoming workout freaks, so maybe there’s something to the idea of the addictive or extreme personality. Or maybe it’s random variations and salience bias.

A make a meta comment, this post is almost like the old days of blogging… Default Friend and Delicious Tacos have websites separate from the major “social” media platforms (only Personality Girl is slacking in this regard, cause she does Twitter not blog). I’m replying on a site that’s also separate from the major data hoarders. There should be more independence and less Facebook leviathan. We can do better. Get off the big sites, be informationally independent, that’s what Balaji thinks crypto can help us do, we can do it ourselves in the ways we can right now.

Link again to the DT, Personality Girl, Default Friend pod ep. I read DT’s book THE PUSSY, it’s a fine book but one I think I read when I’d become too old and too earnest to love it. Earnestness is in today, existential irony is out. Onlyfans is the expression of earnestness in the smut market, fake San Fernando Valley surgically altered bimbos are the expression of existential irony.

Breeze gives The Talk

Breeze gives The Talk.” Good for him, and a deft, nuanced discussion about and analysis of this stage in the seduction. 

Breeze is going places. I wouldn’t be surprised if he winds up with a quality girlfriend… but I also wouldn’t be surprised if he plunges into the f**k clubs… he feels like an unwritten book. 

There are smart ideas from Nash in the comments as well. The comments section Breeze hosts is worthwhile. 

Reveal vs Restructure: “This is why the Player’s Journey can be so traumatic for many men. They are diving deep into their inner game to confront long-suppressed demons.”

Krauser’s post “Reveal vs. Restructure” is the most important post about beginner mental state that I’ve ever read.

“We expect too much from our romantic partners”

People are getting married later, people are having kids later, some people aren’t marrying at all, lots of people (especially women) who want kids aren’t having them… why? Smart guys know that marriage is a bad deal but many have to learn this the hard way… I’m interested in the deeper reasons, like that we expect too much from our romantic partners.

Old days: the woman’s job was to be faithful, take care of the kids, and put food on the table.

Man’s job: keep a roof over the head. Come home at night.

Today: the job is to be a soulmate, a best friend, a mysterious lover, a catalyst for fulfillment, a spiritual advisor… probably other things… how can this be done? By one person?

Continue reading ““We expect too much from our romantic partners””

Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollo Tomassi Rational Male post

More reader questions… a batch ask about Rollo and The Rational Male… I think Rollo is a considerable improvement on the default state of the average guy. An average guy will see his life and knowledge improved if he reads The Rational Male book. Like in the one about “levels” of game/development, my view depends on where the guy is and what he needs… Rollo is above the median, so that’s good for a basic guy.

But.. you knew a “but” was coming… most of The Rational Male is more culture war than I’m interested in. I’m glad someone wants to prosecute culture war on the behalf of embattled men… though I personally want to do other things… I don’t spend time with angry feminists and I’m a bit more interested in guys talking about the real mechanics of real-world dating (and sex of course). About the practice and about specifics of how to make it work. That is what I encourage guys to blog about. I want to live more immediately. Yes, feminism is bad… yes, feminism has infiltrated some workplaces and many HR departments… in my everyday life it is never as bad as it’s depicted on the Internet, and I want to write about what I see in my life.

So Rollo is most into culture and culture war and hypergamy. I am most interested in game and f**king. Rollo wants to raise the level of the average guy, I think… I want to talk to guys who have game or want to develop game, the guys who want to get to the top. If you’re interested in getting laid a lot and understanding individual female psychology, I’m really talking to you. If you’re aiming to talk about large scale social forces… I am less into that. Obviously there’s some overlap between the two groups but the focus is different.

It’s pretty rare for me to link to Rollo because his material is fine but it’s rarely on the topics most vital to me. There’s a sidebar link to him because, like I said, I think his book is useful for some guys, and it covers material I don’t. I don’t agree with everything in it but that’s fine too… it’s better than the male average and that’s good enough for me. If you know an average guy, it is good to slip him a copy of The Rational Male book, particularly if he’s going through a tough breakup or divorce and is ready to understand reality. I can see giving the right guy the book.

Nash’s statement on Rollo… he’s more anti-Rollo than I am. If you want the anti-Rollo statement, read it.

I don’t think Rollo’s work describes “top guy” worlds or will help guys get to the top, though they will help average guys who are totally asleep or misled. For guys with game fundamentals, who want to reach the next levels, he’s not optimal. So is he “good” or “bad?” Depends on the guy and his needs. It’s nice that someone is attacking the bad feminist culture… I just don’t want to be that guy myself. It’s also not good to get stuck in that world… it’s better to get into a world where a guy is getting laid, building skills, etc.

A lot of the Internet consists of people announcing that something is 100% s**t, and something else is 100% genius… I don’t really do that binary thinking… there can be things with some positive aspects, some with neutral aspects, and some with negative aspects… including me… I wouldn’t expect anyone to agree with 100% of what I say… if someone did, that would be odd.

I have some theory and philosophy posts… but most of what I write germinates from some experience or other. Something happens, I talk to someone, I do something, then I write about it. That is, I believe, where the best material originates.

“The cat years”

Another super sad spinster story. “The cat years” is depressing… looking at the dark side of life is important… for women, not having a family sets them up for a life that is composed more of misery and missed opportunities than for joy… yet younger women are systematically misled. I have some compassion and pity for spinsters… they messed up and they are an example to other women of what not to do.

“Why meeting another’s gaze is so powerful:” the power of eye contact

Eye contact, eye contact, eye contact.

As well as sending our brains into social overdrive, research also shows that eye contact shapes our perception of the other person who meets our gaze. For instance, we generally perceive people who make more eye contact to be more intelligent, more conscientious and sincere (in Western cultures, at least), and we become more inclined to believe what they say.

Of course, too much eye contact can also make us uncomfortable – and people who stare without letting go can come across as creepy. In one study conducted at a science museum, psychologists recently tried to establish the preferred length of eye contact. They concluded that, on average, it is three seconds long (and no one preferred gazes that lasted longer than nine seconds).

Players practice it. Chicks respond to it.

Another documented effect of mutual gaze may help explain why that moment of eye contact across a room can sometimes feel so compelling. A recent study found that mutual gaze leads to a kind of partial melding of the self and other: we rate strangers with whom we’ve made eye contact as more similar to us, in terms of their personality and appearance

If she holds your eyes for those three seconds, go talk to her immediately. This chick is an example of eye contact’s power.

“He is exactly the kind of partner a liberated woman is supposed to want, and yet she despises him for it”

I’ve been saying that women are the truest red pillers… now we see an article by a chick, about books written by chicks, that are as red pill as anything comes… it’s about whether a novel can “capture the contradictions of female desire,” but it’s not hard to understand… one just has to remember that chicks are random and also that many chicks don’t want to be accountable for their decisions. Seriously, the chicks writing the novels and the chick writing the article agree with me, just not in the exact framing I use…

Their behavior mystifies them, and they discover that the selective work of authorship can relieve their confusion: if they choose some moments from their past and discard others, if they arrange these moments in just the right way, they might be able to understand themselves as logical and consistent, free of the messy task of figuring out what they want, and the even messier one of fully accepting these wants.

When guys ask women logical questions about the woman’s behavior and don’t get logical answers, that’s often because the woman herself doesn’t know. “Their behavior mystifies them.” One thing most chicks hate, however, is boredom, as we see here.

Of the intervening years, we have learned that she married and abruptly divorced a kale-loving man, a classmate in her grad-school cohort, whom she describes as “nice” and “ever so understanding.” She is mocking him. He is exactly the kind of partner a liberated woman is supposed to want, and yet she despises him for it.

Nice guys are boring. “Liberated” women want what other women want.

Years after her ur-erotic hotel-room encounter, the narrator finds herself in another hotel room, this time with a man she has picked up in the bar downstairs. Her husband is at home and thinks she is away at a job interview or visiting friends; she can’t remember. Alone with the stranger, the narrator tells him that she wants to be dominated. This time she’s articulating her desire, rather than discovering it through someone else’s, and in the act of articulation she can’t help but come face to face with her own agency. But the fantasy itself is for the opposite: “I hate making choices,” she says.

If she wants it, the husband doesn’t matter, the previous agreements don’t matter… all that matters is the moment. The impressive thing is that she says she wants to be dominated. Most women want guys to intuit that, to just know it. But “I hate making choices…” that’s why smart guys minimize the choices chicks need to make. In the old world, the anthropological hunter-gatherer world and then the agricultural world, chicks didn’t have many choices to make. They married who their families, mostly their fathers and brothers, told them to marry. Now we are surprised that a lot of chicks are unhappy to be introduced into the world of intense mating competition and that many chicks are ambivalent about the choices in front of them. Chicks live in the land of maybe, but most guys are never taught this.

Most guys don’t understand what women want during sex, or how to give it to them…

This contrast—of women raring to assert their agency in one context, then willing, even eager, to relinquish it another—captured my interest in part because of its familiarity. I’d seen it crop up recently in widely praised works both written by and featuring brazen, outspoken, and almost always middle-class white women. It’s in Sally Rooney’s “Conversations with Friends,” when Frances tries unsuccessfully to get Nick—older, married, kind—to choke and hit her during sex. And in Rooney’s “Normal People,” when Marianne discloses to gentle, sensitive Connell, her on-again-off-again boyfriend, that another man has hit her with a belt, choked her—that she asked for it, enjoyed it.

Read from the right perspective, this “feminist” article in a feminist magazine about feminist novels tells us more about real chicks than most of the man-hating feminist writing. There are some dysfunctional women who hate men and some dysfunctional men who hate women, but most of all guys need to learn to understand chicks, and then their behavior becomes clearer. Chicks are often like random-number generators, a fact that explains my interactions with many chicks the interactions so many men have with chicks.

This article is great reading for confused guys.

Women are the truest red pillers.

“GOD it feels so good to get picked up.”

“The hilarious part was that after we f**ked, she says: ‘GOD it feels so good to get picked up.’

I have gotten this kind of response too. Sometimes chicks will yield horrible blowouts or just look at you like you’re a bug, but more often the responses will be positive, and sometimes they will be ecstatic, like this chick. Remember that most chicks are passive and will not do much but try to look good and react to the man’s actions.

Even many girls in relationships will be flattered when you hit on them. Most guys today are glued to their phones and have become social idiots. Be different.