“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?

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 online dating are 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 bitter 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.

Singles push politics and societies to be more extreme??

How single men and women are making politics more extreme… fewer people are marrying and having children, but women with sons have a strong incentive to protect a “male” point of view and the same is true for men with daughters, who have a strong incentive to protect a “female” point of view. Strip out some of cross-sex ties that come from marriage and children and both extreme feminism and the red pill stem from the same family locus.

Go further than the writer, who can’t go as dark as anonymous writers, like this anonymous writer… a lot of guys feel shut out of the sexual market altogether, and form communities of lost boys on the Internet, or fill their time with porn and video games, cause why bother trying for sex if they’re so far out of the sexual marketplace? Anger takes the place of success, when a guy isn’t numbing himself with video games. The less practice with women a guy has, the less able he is to seduce, attract, and retain women, leaving him with an angry festering emotional void where a relationship is supposed to go. (I’m not advocating this point of view and advocate the opposite, but it is out there.) Yes, it’s true that feminism has destroyed a lot of the school system and made it extremely anti-male, fostering video game dependency with its anti-male hatred… but a guy still exists in this world and for most people not having any relationship at all is bad, worse than all but the worst relationships. Particularly as one grows older. At age 20 you can say it will happen for me one day. For the average 40 year old man (yes I know about 40 year old players with hot 20 something women, that’s not average), it’s probably not going to happen.

A lot of women, meantime, have been “liberated” from the scourge of male resources and support. Haha, thanks feminism. I bet most real women really love that liberation from male wages and secure male attention. Women are used to being financially and emotionally subsidized by men, but now women are freed from the bonds of marriage to pursue hypergamy… they can chase guys +2 in SMV or more, get f**ked by them, and then have those men move on to the next field (woman). This hurts women. Worse still a lot of women at the bottom of the scale don’t even get to feel the pleasures of male attraction and attention. Hot men won’t pay attention to me? Feminism has the answer, that men are scum, etc., answers that are not true or interesting.

The red pill is a reaction to this situation. Feminists weaponized gender first, and now it’s happening among men. Men have also realized that if we hit the gym, practice seduction, learn what women like, and learn how to press women’s buttons, we can get as much sex as we can handle without having to marry the woman and subsidize her. It used to be that men traded resources for sex in marriage. Now we don’t have to trade. So for some top men… why bother marrying? Divorce still favors women… so why do it?

Women are unhappy when society favors marriage… women are unhappy when society doesn’t favor marriage… women vote for various means to extract subsidies from men via taxes rather than via marriage… men have mostly not figured this out. Too busy playing video games and watching sports. And we wonder why national politics are hopelessly fucked up, when they mirror a gender fight we all see on the ground. Feminists who started this gender fight didn’t think about what would happen when men get into it. Average men and women are still probably okay, the ones not contaminated too much by feminism… elite men are doing well (f**king as much as we like, based on good habits and knowledge of female attraction triggers). Elite women are doing somewhat less well because they have to compete so hard for other elite men.

We are getting into a situation where the extremes are more extreme. There are more virgins and incels than ever, and more hard-core players than ever. The hard-core players can learn from each other… I have been hearing reports from guys racking up 10+ lays in under a year from learning the game, then applying it to sex clubs. A guy who wants to raise himself above average has a clear path to doing that.

It has never been a better time to be a player… or a sexually unrestricted woman… it has never been a worse time to be a provider guy… or a medium tier woman trying to lock down a higher status man. An individual who can’t get what he or she wants is annoying… an army of women or men who can’t get what they want is a political force. A destabilizing political force. Families moderate humans. Adult humans without families are reshaping our society for the worse.

“I Thought I Wanted to Go It Alone” Narrator: “She did not.”

“I Thought I Wanted to Go It Alone,” a woman writes, as if she is a snake or a lizard, rather than a human. Narrator: “She did not.” No one really wants to go it alone… everyone wants to go it with someone like +2 SMV… and if that cannot be achieved… then it’s time to “go it alone” as a pose. Humans are social beings and almost none of us really want to go it alone. When someone says they want to go it alone, male or female, they are almost always posturing.

This woman has the usual delusional woman problems, “What broke my state? A few things, really. I passed 35 and wanted a baby. I fell in love and was mercilessly dumped.” Of course she wanted a baby, no one gives a f**k about their career accomplishments, compared with their family networks… and that goes triply for chicks.  Somehow almost no one among professional women circles talks honestly about this. “Your Professional Decline Is Coming (Much) Sooner Than You Think.” For chicks it’s worse, cause their SMV decline starts around age 30 and accelerates by 35.

Smart chicks understand the fleeting nature of youth and beauty and focus on having a family. They might go through a sexually adventurous and experimental phase lasting a few months to a few years, but they understand that they should have a good route from maidan to mother to crone. It’s not hard, and most chicks’s grandmas could probably tell them what to do.

I should stop posting this kind of shit… there’s so much of it… yet delusion is kind of fascinating… I think the best players understand delusion pretty well.

“First swingers clubs,” from a player in a forum

“First swingers clubs“… a guy named Sailors Grave writes in the good looking loser forum. The content is average and there is nothing ground-breaking in his field report, but apart from black dragon he’s the first example I’ve seen of a player talking about swinging and sex parties.

I stumbled onto it by accident but it’s so unusual to find a player speaking to this domain that I’m linking it up. Have you seen other players figure this out?

“Why 16? Who do age of consent laws really protect” A dangerous story, too

There’s a story in the second half of this one……. about me turning tail and running.

Why 16? Who do age of consent laws really protect. Rare to see these ideas questioned, because they serve two groups’s interests: older women voters and parents. Obviously older women parents really see their interests served, but fathers don’t want to watch their daughters make typical re/tarded romantic decisions and get pregnant by charming older players. Charming teen players are bad enough. Throw in experienced seducers with teen girl morons and the teen girls risk pregnancy, heartbreak, etc., while their parents risk having to mop up the mess.

Parents don’t give a shit about abstract arguments regarding right, wrong, consistency, etc. That shit’s for the philosophers. Parents just want their daughters to be less likely to get pregnant, get STIs, become dick drunk, etc. Don’t underestimate the power of the last one… if you are a player you’ve seen chicks go out of their minds with desire, at least temporarily, and a decent number of dads remember women who went crazy with love/lust. They want to avoid that condition in teen girls if at all possible. Don’t think your arguments about reason, autonomy, women being their own bosses, etc. are going to persuade the parents who have to deal with seduction’s aftermath. Adult women have a hard enough time, as we can see from the number of women bearing children out of wedlock.

Plus… women who are over the age of 18 and especially over the age of 25/30 can’t effectively compete with younger chicks. How do you avoid competition? Outlaw the possible competitors.