“Empowering” and “empowerment are hugely overused words, and the people using them are neither. The people talking about “empowerment” are trying to escape from some aspect of themselves they don’t like, or something they’ve done that doesn’t fit their present narrative. “Empowered” people aren’t talking about empowerment, they’re busy doing things in the real world. Things that are really empowering include learning rare/unusual skills, building a real business that adds value to the world, having peak experiences, deepening real relationships, and probably a few other activities that don’t come immediately to mind. Also, the most “empowered” people I know never talk about empowerment or say they’re “empowered,” so talking about “empowerment” is a sign of weakness/neediness/something undesirable. I searched for the word “empowerment” on red quest and found it in a single post, used skeptically, despite the fact that red quest is in some sense about “empowering” guys to lead the lives they want. If you do the things advocated, and develop the skills described, you’ll be “empowered,” and if/when you are, you own’t need to talk about it. “Empowering” is used once in this blog, but in a quote.
The most stridently asserted opinions will disappear down the memory hole.
Remember all the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) truthers from a few months ago? The ones who no longer exist, or seem to exist? The ones who had all the answers six months ago?
I know, I barely remember them either, and probably none of the people who were confidently pitching it do. But I wonder and you should too, “What are they stridently asserting today?” Should we believe it? Why?
What should we take from this episode? I haven’t seen any of the voices who were confidently and wrongly asserting that HCQ or this thing or that thing (vitamin c! no, d!) is a magic bullet, talk about how they were wrong, why they were wrong, and most importantly what will change in the future.
At Thanksgiving this year I got roasted… hot young Ms. Slav was the main topic of conversation… even though she wasn’t there and I’ve not seen her in a while, and none of the participants were present for her presence at Thanksgiving two years ago. Word gets around, and a jealous relative brought her up early by saying, “Whatever happened to your girlfriend Ms. Slav anyway?” From there, others took up the theme, and I think extensive snide commentary and questions about her were an attack on my current arrangement, and haters love revenge.
If you f**k with the social order of things, the social order of things will f**k with you back. Women hate seeing older guys with hot young chicks, not just because the older guy is unavailable but because seeing an older guy with a hot young chick will give other guys ideas, which is far worse than the one weird outlier guy who gets the girl every other guy wants. Guys hate seeing older guys with hot young chicks because the other guy is envious. Not all guys… some guys are past bullshit envy and will be genuinely happy for another guy getting one over on society and knobbing a tight young girl… but the majority want to be the hammer pounding the nail that sticks out.
For most guys I think Thanksgiving, yesterday, would’ve been uncomfortable… for me it was a bit annoying to see the social order fighting back, with the representatives of the social order behaving like zombies, not even realizing who or what is pulling their strings… but it is what it is, and I knew that I was pulling a social retard move by bringing Ms. Slav into that part of my life. I should’ve “accidentally” put some pics of me f**king her on my phone and then “accidentally” had them on the screen, when I was supposed to be showing cute dog or apartment pics. If you want to be a player, some bad things will come from it, and it seems to me that most guys who’ve truly been players and written about it don’t emphasize the bad parts. It can be lonely, and it can be alienating, and it can cause intense envy and jealousy. Older women are jealous they’re not young and hot any more; guys are jealous that you’re going to take home a hot slut and they’re going to take home no one, or their heavy wife who doesn’t like them any more anyway. Few women love men more than sugar. Few women love men more than sloth.
“Eurovision Song Contest” is a cute movie, I laughed at some of the scenes, but it’s a socially uncanny valley movie, and the uncanny valley thing but one thing gnawed at me… the leads are way too old for the roles. So old they feel weird, but in a revealing way… the plot of the movie has Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams as a platonic singing duo, with Ferrell also trying to deal with his father’s disapproval, and McAdams trying to sexually entice Ferrell, since Ferrell is, as in most or all of his roles, asexual or sexually uninterested in women (a fantasy many guys who lack masculine identity and play too many video games have). Farrell and McAdams are having problems characteristic of the 16 – 24 year old set… the teens and young adults who haven’t formed proper identities yet and who are trying to make it in the arts business… and the movie is ambiguous about the age of the characters, but come on. Even with surgeries and procedures Ferrell and Rachel McAdams are ridiculous.
I checked and McAdams is 41, so she’s on the verge of infertility if she’s not already infertile… she’s way too old to be chasing a man-child. What’s her sexual past like? If she was 19 we could see her as a late bloomer but few hot or once-hot women age 30+ have no sexual past. Ferrell is 53… and still in his father’s shadow…? Has he not managed to evolve at all as a man? Ferrell, like Adam Sandler, specializes in man-child roles but even man-child actors must eventually move out of those roles. Ferrell and McAdams are in the social uncanny valley because they’re middle aged playing roles appropriate to teens and young adults, but their many cosmetic procedures also make them look unnatural, even with hollywood lighting and makeup. All acting is playacting but they feel off, even though they are funny. In the movie they have not managed to move past the problems that 20 year olds have and that is revealing about our society as a whole, which deifies youth and leaves little role for anyone who has left that period. Continue reading ““Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga:” the uncanny valley”
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… he’s also posted some goofy shit like this), 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.
Update, January 2021, see The most stridently asserted opinions will disappear down the memory hole.
The other day I went on a Twitter talk about how you shouldn’t believe everything you read, and then I stopped being oblique and said there’s a “daygame” twitter account under the name “BroodingSea” (BS) that is likely… creative… in terms of its relationship with the real world. Another daygamer guy asked privately why BS is unlikely to be a good role model, and why I think he is, if not necessarily fake exactly, then not telling us everything. There are a bunch of reasons… 1. His results are too good. 2. His supposed pickups are way too good/smooth. 3. He seems not to get any of the negative streaks other guys do. 4. There are almost no details in any of his stories. While it’s possible to get “yes girls” who like you / are horny at that moment / fuck you with much game on your part, they are rare (in some respects this girl was a “yes girl”… it can happen, but every girl? No). At some point Nash or others called BS out on how unlikely his stories are, and then he began integrating more supposed “failures.”
Put all those pieces together and the bullshit siren should be going off louder than a Marine Corps drill sergeant the first morning at Basic. Unfortunately, BS disappeared, so we’re unlikely to see further revealing statements from him. He may have made the mistake of using some of his primary contact information in online profiles… always go with the burners… despite the improbability of his stories I don’t support doxxing, including of people I disagree with.
So what is going on with him? He’s not the first and won’t be the last guy with extremely improbable stories. Most likely, one or more of of several things is at play… 1. He’s paying / using some money in his “game.” I don’t think this is bad (if a guy wants to do it, fine), but he should say as much and describe the role money/payments play. If he has sufficient money to pay, he can get a lot of lays that way, particularly in eastern europe, or with eastern europeans online. A lot of girls who are in the partial escort market have a sliding scale in their minds, where the more masculine/attractive the guy is, the less he pays (not all girls… some are super professional… using some money may also allow him to generate the unique pictures that can be claimed as daygame lays). Years ago I did something like what BS may be doing, for $500/mo…. in a number of ways I got lucky quickly… and I probably shouldn’t have done any money transfer at all… but I did it and it should be admitted for the sake of completeness. Back to BS, 2. He’s probably mostly online, with great pics, and getting girls who are much less hot than he says/implies (I have slummed it at times, usually when I’m horny and some girl shows up who’s less attractive than her pictures but also requires minimal work… not proud but it’s true…). I think he posted a pic or two of himself in which he appears to be jacked. If those pics are honest, he’ll be able to get girls -2 or -3 relative to the ones he should be able to get from the real world. 3. A bunch of his stuff is just made up. You know how people in real life who are full of shit often tell skeleton stories, and when you ask follow-up questions, you can see that they’d never considered an obvious point? Brooding Sea’s stories look like that. Some could be authentic… a bunch don’t seem like they are, though.
I was talking to Lee Cho daygame on Twitter about this, “One thing I’ve noticed about the game guys who write in depth… very few make me think, ‘I want to be that person.’ Many seem to have something interesting about them but very few seem top of the heap.” Most of the online game guys seem to have a bit of a screw loose, or lack common sense, or the ability to connect (for real, in a deep way) with other people… this shows, eventually, in their writing. Roosh might be the poster boy for this effect… I read him a bit years ago, probably like 2011 or 2013 or something, and found him interesting in terms of his game obsession but, even then, it was obvious that something was internally wrong with him, psychologically or spiritually, for lack of better words. Top guys (and girls… this is really a “human” thing, not a “man” or “woman” thing) have internal congruence, and people who lack it stand out… which Roosh seemed to, even back then… his interest in f**king women seemed to come from underlying dislike and disdain for women… which many women no doubt sensed, even if they couldn’t articulate what was off about him. So the higher-value, better-put-together women probably avoided him… which reinforced some of his negative views about women… leading to a cycle. Mature adults are highly attuned to congruence and will distance themselves from people who lack congruence.
There is “good screw loose” in the sense of someone who is smart but sees the world differently, and there is “bad screw loose” in the sense of someone who is off, f**ked up, etc. The online game guys don’t seem like they have a screw loose in the crazy inventor / startup founder / rogue genius way… it’s more like a screw loose in the way of the kid no one wants to pick for their team/group… even if the online guys get really good and accomplished at game. A lot of top girls, even the ones who are open to cold approach (lots are), are going to judge a guy based on his social world and social network… if the guy doesn’t have one, or much of one, she’s going to spot that quickly. So it’s going to be hard for a lot of guys to get or retain better girls… there are limits to the front. The better girls are also going to be super curious about character, and, if they find it lacking, they are going to pull away.
In real life… the people I most like and admire, I wouldn’t want to literally take over their lives, exactly, but there’s a lot in them to emulate, not just in their field of expertise, usually. Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is. Among guys developing game skills… almost none of them I’d want to trade places with… not at even odds… the number whose overall lives I admire… is pretty small. We’ve all probably met people who are “successful” in some domain, but there is something wrong with them, and whatever is wrong keeps them from getting to where they might get otherwise.
Take… let’s use the “all women blah blah blah” guys as an example. I agree that all women have the capacity to blah blah blah (whatever the example is)… but not all will… an example story from my life… there are others. Or the ones who say all women are lazier and worse than men in a bunch of ways… well, one study claims that women in their 20s now out-earn men in their 20s… one of my own early work mentors was a woman… she was at the top of her field. On average women are worse-suited to leading and creating large organizations… but there are exceptions, and “on average” conceals a lot… in terms of dating, all women have the capacity to cheat, sure… but not all do/will. If you think so, try to get women to have a philander with you… some will, but a lot won’t. If the woman is stepping out… there’s usually also something wrong with you, with her, or with the relationship… but men don’t like to emphasize that.
Top women… don’t put up with less-than-top men… women will also show you who they are, usually pretty early, and MOST GUYS IGNORE THE SHOW. Then… they bitch when the woman acts the way she has shown him she will act… you already knew, or should have known, who she is, but you choose to ignore that (the p***y is good) and then come to the Internet to cry… or to your friends… meanwhile… are you asking yourself who you are, and what you are bringing to the relationship… no, you are not… are you asking yourself what signs you missed… probably not.
If a woman bitches about all the cads she meets, and how guys are all blah blah blah… it’s like, you have probably met thousands of men, and if they are “all like this…” what do they all have in common… you? Same thing with men. Same thing in business. Have you ever met a manager whose employees are somehow all stupid and incompetent? Or an employer who can’t ever get workers? If he says that… then the manager hasn’t learned to be a manager, he hasn’t learned to help people level up their skills, or something is wrong with him if EVERYONE is incompetent. The business is not paying enough, or something else is the matter. I have already written about the most common problem women who can’t find a man have, “Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures.” Well, in business, if a manager or company cannot find any employees, then something is wrong with wages, work environment, location, or something else. It’s up to the manager to diagnose those problems and make changes. Markets are pretty efficient. Most often the problem is wages. People want to make more money, not less, and if the firm is not paying adequately, people will go to the firms that are.
Character judgment is hard and often separate from physical attraction… most people claim to want both in one… most often they pick one and go for that… and get results consistent with it. Extremely effective people blame themselves for successes or especially failures, even when the success or especially failure is outside of their control. The question is always, “What could I have done differently?” “What do I do differently in the future?” Kids rarely do this… to a kid, it’s always someone else’s fault… to the true adult, it’s always my fault, even if it’s someone else’s fault… the most effective people do this… if you follow Elon Musk you know that he knows just about every single part that goes in a SpaceX rocket or Tesla car… he learns relentlessly, because he knows that if the rocket explodes, no matter whose fault it is, it is his fault. Look at the Boeing managers, by contrast. In Boeing, it is always someone else’s fault. But Boeing has an unfair crony capitalist market that is heavily tied into politicians, so Boeing can’t fail, over the short term, because it’s being propped up by regulators. Unless you are a trust fund kid or something, you have to get by on your own wiles.
Character judgment is separate from technical ability… people who are wise are doing it all the time… it is what I am doing when I write, “One thing I’ve noticed about the game guys who write in depth… very few make me think, ‘I want to be that person.’ Many seem to have something interesting about them but very few seem top of the heap.” Maybe they are different in real life… reading their writing, though, problems with character, personality, and intellect seem to leak out… even among the ones with very high technical skill… Krauser is probably the most technically skilled person writing about the game… but as for his character… read his blog/memoirs closely and decide for yourself… don’t take my word… don’t take my word for anything… try it for yourself… develop your own style, sense of judgment, etc. I can help you think about how to think about things, but I can’t tell you what to think. Many people never develop these skills properly and suffer for it, including many guys who are technically good at game.
I have seen some of the RSD videos, and none or almost none of them make me think, “This guy is admirable and I’d want to hang out with him.” Some of them probably have game… almost none of them seem like guys I admire.
There are exceptions… red pill dad seems pretty well put together, although I disagree with him in places… same with Magnum… not surprisingly, they want to stay anonymous… cause they know in the real world, the penalty of being made known is high… the amount of money one can earn from coaching is low… and most guys can’t be helped cause they’re too incompetent to be helped, or have deep problems, and “bad with chicks” is a manifestation of their underlying problems. A symptom, not a cause. A few guys can be helped… they are the ones I am most speaking to. The number of psychologically okay, well-put-together adult men who don’t have a real job, is super small. There is a lot of “location-independent income” roleplay happening online. I am 100% in favor of real small businesses that can do real location-independent income… that is, however, far harder to achieve than the online hucksters would have the average guy believe, as stated. Most of the guys pitching this… have little evidence of it. I don’t think I know any adult guy in real life, who is put together effectively and doesn’t have a real job of some kind. Effective adult guys… have a job… almost all of the time.
Effective guys also evaluate their effects on other people. There is a lot of “tough guy” role play online right now, among guys who think COVID precautions are stupid. Effective guys who are in touch with older parents / relatives / employers / employees… don’t wish to get those people sick, even if they don’t care too much about themselves… that is a point in How I see dating, girls, COVID-19, and the quarantines, right now.” Willful disregard of others tells us something about the guy, his mental state, and his social world. What it tells us… is not good. We know that the route through COVID and minimizing it runs through masks… yet there’s a bunch of anti-mask roleplay online (masks are a tool, not a symbol). Some guys will mistake the online game for the real world… which is sad… but maybe becoming more common.
If you read this whole piece… along with the original internal congruence one… you will see that a lot of it is about boy psychology versus man psychology… as well as, a bit less, girl psychology versus adult woman psychology. Girls are often attracted to men… and men are often attracted to younger women… but it is useful to see how and where these things intersect… and what maturity looks like. Some women reach psychological and emotional maturity very early… and if a man can’t match them, and grow with them, he is not going to last with her. People are messed up in some ways, are often attracted to and attractive to other people who are messed up. I mostly avoid the most messed-up girls (and guys)… I have f**ked girls who are somewhat messed up… probably not smart buy I have done it… but I have kept them at a distance. If the girl finds you messed up enough, and not in an attractive dark broody way, she is not going to f**k you… she is going to fade away. She doesn’t want to be in your life, like you don’t want to be in the lives of people with bad/weak character.
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?
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.
A guy asked me about what I think is true and useful in red pill, since I’ve written out some criticisms… it’s a good question… I thought about it… and came up with some answers…
1. Women (mostly) get their value; men (mostly) earn their value
An attractive woman who doesn’t eat too much sugar and isn’t ridiculously lazy gets a lot of social and sexual value as a teenager, and that value stays with her well into her 30s (where it can drop suddenly… a lot of women are surprised by the drop). She doesn’t have to do much to get and maintain her value. Men, by contrast, mostly have to earn our value through achievement. “Achievement” can mean a lot of different things.
“Mostly” is key because there are exceptions. Women can squander their value, and some get screwed genetically, and some get screwed behaviorally by their families (if your family feeds you a bunch of garbage simple carbohydrates and sugar, then a lot of the value will go away or never arrive). Some guys have great physical attractiveness and that works with women, for a long time, without great effort… a few guys get a lot of value without having to do much work for it. There are exceptions but the overall correlation is clear.
2. Most guys don’t understand women.
By failing to understand women or what women want/feel, most guys screw up their game.
3. Women are attracted to winners.
What “winners” means can mean a lot of different things to different women… but a guy who wins at something is going to do better than a guy who doesn’t.
4. Family courts in the United States are set up to attack men
Family courts take men’s money and children away, and there is very little a man can do to stop that process. Real world divorce should be required reading for any man contemplating marriage.
5. Schools are biased against men
Same as #4, but with schools. Parents need to resist schools’s desire to medicate boys, especially younger boys. I don’t want to spend too much time b**ching about bias… the solution to bias is to work harder than the other guy… but it is real and exists.
6. Men are performance oriented.
Video games are poisonous because they give the simulacrum of performance with none of the outcome from the real thing (as a side hobby they can be okay… for a lot of guys they are not a side hobby). “Performance” can mean lots of things, so this is similar to #3, and high, sustained performance leads to #1: achievement.
In terms of men and women “performance” is usually measured by, “are you f**king the chick?” If you f**k her… that is an unambiguous performance success measure… because it’s unambiguous… a lot of guys prefer softer, squishier metrics.
7. Game works. Pickup works.
The game and pickup practices work, if a guy is willing to put in the effort and practice. “Works” will vary by guy… a guy who is male 4 is still unlikely to get female 7s… but the tools are available for a guy to improve his sex and social life, relative to where he starts, if he wants to… most guys don’t, not really.
8. Chicks are usually more passive, and guys need to be more active
Especially with sex/dating, guys need to make the first move… and make things happen… most chicks will accept or reject offers and do little to move things along for themselves. Men create civilization, women live in it (and raise the next generation). Magnum likes to say that women veto. When I was younger I thought women were kind of like defective men because of their inability to propose, plan, and execute. Now I realize that different isn’t the same as defective… if you expect a cow to be a dog you will usually be disappointed.
Many guys don’t understand that it is our responsibility to ask her out, arrange the date, kiss her, escalate, etc. She won’t do it, much. At most she might make it a bit easier by staring at you, playing with her hair, etc., but even that is unusual. Chicks go through the first half of their lives with guys doing things.
9. If you work, you will get better.
This is not a strictly red pill idea, but red pill guys emphasize growth and growth mindset over static/fixed mindset. Trying hard and practice matter, and yet “trying hard” isn’t sufficiently emphasized in the United States and most of Western society. We influence our own destinies, and the harder we try, the more we influence. “Influence” is not the same thing as “100% control…” we are all somewhat restricted by the circumstances of birth, family, genetics, etc. But within those parameters, the people who work to seize control, get more control. If you believe you will fail… you are probably right… if you believe you can’t change… you are probably right…
10. On average, differences between men and women exist
This is pretty straightforward… you can overemphasize differences (a lot of red pill/pickup guys do) but you can also underemphasize them (media is super guilty of this).
Red pill dad has a summary of “basic red pill things.” I think the distinction in #4 is rarely clean cut… and I think #9 is mostly untrue… but the others I mostly buy.
I’m sure I’m missing things, and this isn’t meant to be comprehensive… but there is little game happening during the pandemic, so we get more speculation and, sadly, fewer field reports… I have speculated that the pandemic will change the game… probably by making chicks more k selected, and less r, on average. When we have a lot of money, low disease burden, and extra resources, we can afford to f**k around a lot more. Cross-subsidies in relationships don’t matter as much. Can the woman not cook, but she’s good in bed? That’s okay, order takeout. Can the man not earn, but he’s hot and a practiced dom? That’s okay, she’ll get a job of her own. When we see incomes collapse and uncertainty rise… we’ll see more k. The opposite, more r. That’s my guess… it could be wrong… and it also only takes a few outliers for a “trend” to feel wrong, even if it is overall correct.