Red Scare podcast girls on real sex

I was listening to one of the Red Scare podcasts, I think this one, and it’s amazing how on-target so much of it is regarding how sexuality really works. One of the hosts said, “Feminism’s all about being in denial,” about your sexuality and sexuality desires… it makes me consider, how many chicks are figuring this out? Lots of them will admit as much in private but not in public, for fear of the feminist social media mob. If feminists were as drawn to the squat rack as they are to baselessly attacking others, they would have boyfriends. It’s like the old days in the Soviet Union, when everyone knew the truth privately but was afraid to admit it publicly. Modern feminism is a con… one of the hosts says, “I’ve taken the red pill on feminism a long time ago.” So Red Pill language is permeating the mainstream. One of them says, “Getting hit by your boyfriend feels good…. Well it doesn’t feel good but it makes you feel alive.” I like the distinction… is “alive” good? Sometimes. Sometimes maybe not. They get the ambivalence and ambiguity in sex and sexuality, something that’s almost entirely missing in the hysterical media world, where all women are innocent victims and all men evil predators.

In reality… there are few victims or true predators… a lot of women have decided that the inept stance that women are irrational is somehow desirable… exactly the opposite stance of the feminism in the 50s – 70s, when women wanted to be seen as being as capable as men. How many women have secret housewife fantasies they won’t express? I’ve heard those too, stated quietly.

Back to sex, one of them says, “I love getting restrained and getting the menace of violence.”… I keep saying “one of them” because it’s hard for me to figure out who is who… they both sound f**kable, could be wrong here… yet for men the lesson is, “BDSM skills matter.” That should be the new Twitter hashtag. I have another post about women’s love for BDSM that I forgot to put up… it’ll come…

Another time one says, “10 years ago I might’ve still been a yuppie.” I dunno, you kind of have to be a yuppie to afford big cities today…

I have talked about Red Scare a little bit before this, and I have been getting messages about it, and about how approving of it is somehow bad, cause it’s hosted by women, or some of the thins they say aren’t true… I disagree that some disagreement removes all value or truth… look, there are various things I disagree with them about (capitalism is awesome and the reason they have a podcast instead of being forced to toil in potato fields or factories, and also Bernie is economically illiterate and unfit to lead the country, or be more than a gadfly…), BUT: they have something interesting to say, particularly about culture, culture’s intersection with politics, sexuality, and male-female relations. It’s also important to not live your life in an echo chamber… we need to be able to disagree but be smart about it… most people can’t move on from their black/white thinking. Having something to say is compelling in an era of morons mindlessly repeating garbled angry formulas they learned fourth-hand from braindead tenured humanities professors.

If you listen to red scare, call her daddy, and joe rogan… one thing they all have in common is that they’re not having the standard media conversation. Read the new york times (and its analogues) and watch the standard news programming (and their analogues), and they’re all stories about bullshit “oppression” olympics, how bad women have it (nonsense… women are protected and supported by men), how white people are (somehow) bad (despite building modern civilization), how men are evil and women are saintly, etc. All of it is, basically… bullshit. There’s some hard news sprinkled into the “news,” particularly for scientific stories that don’t have immediate political ramifications, but a lot of the dominant media narrative(s) are so incomplete as to be wrong… and most people know it. The differences between men and women are obvious from everyday life… they can be exaggerated too much, yes… an individual man or woman may deviate a lot from the norm… but come on, look around at every day life. Get off the jerk-off Internet. The dominant media narratives and their more crazy online cousins (jezebel, for example, or gawker before it went kaput) are bankrupt. BUT… there is also a right-wing version of many of these, in the form of fox news and talk radio, and you know what? It is EVEN WORSE than the NYT, the PMC, academia, etc. It is totally fact free, and reality free. It has some online conspiracy theories wings too. Yuck. People who are not idiots avoid idiots. When we see these big media companies being full of it, we get the crisis of the authority and the revolt of the public that we are seeing.

So red scare, chd, rogan, eric weinstein (the Portal)… I don’t agree with any of them 100%… maybe not even 50%… yet they are all having interesting discussions, at times, outside of the mainstream narrative, and engaging a popular audience, like I am not, because I am writing and most people are illiterate. We can choose to break free of the “official” narrative. I think all four big podcasts have disagreements with one another… but all of them are more interesting and honest than say most of the new york times’s reporting on sex, feminism, men/women, etc. And people (including me) are responding to the “lower / very low bullshit” element.

To the extent red quest has readers… it has readers because what I have to say is somewhat interesting/plausible while also not being part of the standard media narrative, OR part of the standard-media-crazy-counter narrative (Fox News is far worse than the NYT, despite the NYT problems). Let’s look at one version of a different reality… I have NEVER seen anything in the media even remotely like the free sex party book. Never, not once, and I read a lot, more than I should, and I listen, too. If you are aware of anything like it, please leave a comment… I have read Troy Francis’s book by the way and it’s neither detailed nor terribly accurate. The book I put together is 50K words on how this world works. It is far too incendiary for mainstream publishers but also too complex and complete for the reddit/twitter crowds, which can’t understand or digest any idea that is longer than a few sentences. The book is based on analysis more than feelings and for that reason it doesn’t fit into the social media world.

I have seen NOTHING in the media that sounds remotely like the CHD girls. The closest thing is probably mid ’00s Tucker Max, who wrote from a man’s perspective and is also too old to be of interest to most college girls / post-grads working their first jobs in the big city and experimenting with f**king all the hottest dudes they can find. Those girls barely read. Or, the slightly older women who are thinking about what comes next for them… they are probably not the CHD audience but might be the red scare audience… still like f**king and being hot, but they know having a baby is the better/smarter life course… there is much to say here… and the mainstream media is saying very little of it, for the most part. Feminist journalists and university professors are mostly spinsters and are trying to glamorize and valorize their own foolish spinster decisions, while ignoring the gaping hole in their soul that everyone else can see.

So… I’m interested in people who are thinking something, and thinking something that is 1. smart, 2. different, and 3. real. Even if I disagree with parts. I am net pro Rollo Tomassi, despite the qualifications I have stated, because he is having a conversation that is mostly not being had elsewhere. He is often 3/3 even when I disagree. The university/new york times narratives… are often 0/3 (ouch). Not smart, not different, not real. The red scare thinking is often 3/3, or 2/3. If your reply is “don’t listen to girls…” I don’t know what to tell you. “Modern feminism is bad” does not equate to “all women or bad…” judge the ideas… also, do you exist in the real world? Lots of women are smart/intelligent/interesting/etc. If you haven’t figured that out then you are either 1. messed up/inexperienced or 2. you are not surrounded by good people. People image match and if they think you are messed up, they will justifiably avoid you.

Normal men like women and normal women like men… I can’t believe that statement is worth making… it’s out there at the extremes where you get problems. The NYT hates men now and that’s one of its narrative problems. There are also some number of genuinely bad dudes out there… not the majority but enough to be worth noting. The NYT conflates “they had drunk sex and that’s obviously rape” with guys who stalk chicks and do other truly bad things… I have seen it… heard about it… etc. Smart women prioritize their families for lots of reasons… one is that their fathers and brothers will help with male predation. If a woman is being stalked by some guy, staying with one of her (male) family members who owns a firearm can make sense, for example. Chicks are always at risk of predation… though modern culture and police forces mostly protect them from it… which is why the leftist anti-police rhetoric is often ridiculous… which is not to say there are not many problems with police… police shouldn’t murder people… we need a lot of changes in policing. It’s not “police bad civilian good” though. Or the other way around. It’s in the nuance.

So I view red scare as being able to speak to contradiction and complexity… even when I disagree with it, like I sometimes do… and contradiction and complexity are part of the human experience. They are mostly erased from the dominant media narrative, sadly. Re-injecting them is good. Most normal women do not like where the feminism industrial complex has gone, treating women like children or like men, when most women wish to be women. Many guys have not learned to be men and have to seek lessons in masculinity from strangers online, because they don’t get it in schools or from their fat video gamer fathers. The feminist nanny worldview can be challenged thanks to the Internet… and that is what we are seeing happen, thankfully.

So… if you have something interesting and different to say, say it… I want to hear it… I just don’t want to hear surface-level thinking, or bullshit. This blog is for saying something that I see no one else saying, something that is (I hope) tolerably intelligent and also true. No journalist is telling this story, so I decided to tell it myself. Red scare… is telling stories that other people aren’t, and that’s why I listen. Selectively, and rarely if ever to every episode, but enough.

I also admire the chicks doing Red Scare cause they’re pretty anti-fragile… they get attacked by dipshits on Twitter… and then they fire back… they’re not part of the university-industrial complex, so they’re not worried about being fired by some archaic dipshit institution that’s desperately scared of its own clients (“students”). Listening to people who often have something to say and who aren’t dipshits… it’s refreshing, you know?

If I had less to lose I’d start a podcast about game + masculinity… but, unlike the red scare girls, I want to maintain relatively mainstream employment. In another universe I’d find some girl to start a NSFW onlyfans with and be a dirtbag podcaster… troll feminists relentlessly… truly enter the gig economy… truly embrace hedonic degeneracy… learn how to synthesize mdma from the dark web… oh g-d, the depravity… I think I would combust… but I’ve thought about it… truly embracing the dark lord figure… podcasts today can be like the angry metal bands of the ’80s or the hippies of the late ’60s… I’d probably destroy myself in the process… yet it’s possible that I’ve maybe considered it once or twice… instead I do red quest, writing in an age where people have lost the ability to read and think… twitter and universities are like tentacled mind viruses flaying the ability to think clearly… yet Twitter and some podcasts are also where some free speech lives.

Character, game, dating, and would YOU swap lives?

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.

Dating sex positive and non-monogamous girls… and a ramble about the game

A player asked about the last FR… I told him that some of the women at that sex party were quite hot, but they were also looking for guys who are already good at what the women want… like, if you’re a guy and you’re not willing to do some mfm, they’re just not going to be super interested, and some women who’ve had a taste of what’s possible will not date vanilla guys anymore. Instead they want to date guys who can manage jealousy and who have underlying sex skills… those guys are not readily available commodities… so when hot women find guys who can make these peak experiences happen, some of them are happy to have found their male unicorn. Lots of guys will pretend to be non-vanilla and non-monogamous in order to get the lay, but few of them truly are, so women get tired of trying to separate out the pretenders from the real thing.

The player said

Can you just clarify this? These chicks wouldn’t date a vanilla guy just because he has not had experience/not into MFM? Really? I’m trying to gauge the value of MFM in my mind.

The hot women I’m thinking about would likely be open to dating a vanilla guy who is genuinely up for MFM, but a lot of vanilla guys will be excited for FMF (obviously), yet they’ll balk at the other way around. They don’t reciprocate, and reciprocation is a key aspect of human social life and bonding. A lot of guys are also sexually open minded in theory, but when the time for practice arrives, they change their mind and want exclusivity, etc. One woman I know searched for a primary partner and dated like 4 – 6 guys from the internet (not simultaneously), all of whom said they were cool with non-monogamy… then told her they wanted an exclusive relationship. She is a poly s**t so she dumped each. A lot of kinky/non-mono women find vanilla guys useless, cause it’s easy to waste weeks/months on them, just to discover that in reality, no, the guy doesn’t really want to be non-monogamous, although he’s fine with some fmf threesomes… just like every guy straight guy alive.

On the other side of the equation, some monogamously-inclined girls don’t want mfm. Why? If a woman really wants a conventional monogamous boyfriend who is going to be into her, mfm sets that goal back, and most men who will go for mfm will also seek fmf… a small number of guys are into hotwifing/cuckolding or whatever it may be called, but those defective guys are pretty rare.

Continue reading “Dating sex positive and non-monogamous girls… and a ramble about the game”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All dogmas are to be avoided.

“Winners continue to win, and winning builds structural advantages”

That’s what a guy in finance was talking about on a podcast… I didn’t keep track of the original location, sorry, but the finance guy’s gist was something like, “In America, we have these narratives that we’re given from childhood. People are still religious, but we don’t really take our popular stories from holy texts anymore. We take them from Disney movies. The most common narrative when you’re a child in the United States is the little guy coming from behind. But when you get into investing, or any highly competitive arena, you realize that winners continue to win, and winning builds structural advantages. You’re disadvantaged if you’re small. This is not a romanticized story.”

The applicability to game is obvious… to come from behind takes a supernormal amount of work, and it takes someone who wants to buck trends, be different, and concentrate all of his resources on winning.

Most people can only win in one field. I have been talking to a guy in the game who also wants to improve his financial position (a good goal). But it is going to be very hard for him to do the game in depth and to dramatically change his financial life. The guys who he sees winning, financially speaking, have usually been laying the groundwork for victory for many years, and doing a lot of work to get to where they are. “Good, high-paying jobs” is a highly competitive arena where it is hard to come from behind, because other people have a variety of structural advantages built over years.

If you listen to rich, successful guys talk, a lot of them credit their wives for a lot of their success. Red Pill fanatics will reply to say those women are all cheating, they’re all waiting to divorce the successful man and take his money, they’re conniving, etc…. and while those things happen, I don’t think they’re the most common path for a successful, older rich guy. More commonly, a good woman will dramatically increase a man’s ability to succeed financially because she’ll believe in him, she’ll take care of the house, she’ll deal with the kid stuff. When he’s feeling down (everyone feels down sometimes), she’ll support him (there is a difference between sometimes feeling down and making your wife or girlfriend an emotional tampon). She increases a man’s ability to focus on other things, like his business and developing his skills. And of course for most guys, hunting for sex consumes lots of time, energy, and focus.

(Did you see the important word “good” in the paragraph… “a good woman…” a good woman enhances a man’s ability to achieve other goals, while a bad one is a burden.)

I am not suddenly pro-marriage, because marriage is a high-risk bet. If it blows up, the costs are sky-high. If it succeeds, however, the financial, time, and concentration benefits can also be very high. Some high-risk bets are good… this one seems net bad to me… and if a good woman enables a man to concentrate, talk to any divorced guy about what the divorce legal process does to his concentration.

Being good with chicks also has structural advantages. I know undersexed rich guys who can’t get laid, for all kinds of reasons… they are smart, but they have terrible bodies. They have oriented their minds towards technical fields, so that they can’t tease women, lead women, or connect with women. Women’s psychology baffles them and seems like a world of smoke, mirrors, vapor, and hidden trap doors (which it is… players just learn to navigate and get night-vision goggles). Guys who really learn the female mind can do very well at f**king chicks.

Obviously, a guy with a lot of money can use that to buy personal training, buy personality coaching, or buy chicks directly, but that last one has a bunch of downsides and the first two still take a lot of time and energy, and no guy who is 37 is going to get his 20s back. He may “make up” for them in some way, but time goes on direction. Rich guys may not have the structural advantages the captain of the wrestling team had… or whatever example you want to use. Almost all guys who nail a lot of hot chicks have some kind of structural advantage. Could be a job that introduces them to a lot of hot chicks. Could be good looks. Could be exceptional charisma. Could be sex clubs (or, as I think of them, an undervalued market opportunity that most guys don’t understand… investing in undervalued assets is how all those hedge fund guys got rich).

In popular narratives, the ugly duckling gets the girl in the end, who chooses him over the oafish jock. In reality, the oafish jock usually wins the pretty girl. “You’re disadvantaged if you’re small.” And in popular narratives, the ugly duckling often isn’t that ugly. We love to see the little guy come from behind. In reality, the solution is often literally to get big, by hitting the gym. Chicks respond to hot guys, more than they do to pudgy guys. Guys are more driven by pure body than chicks are, but chicks are too. A lot of guys absorb lessons from pop culture that are actively wrong.

Nailing hot chicks is a highly competitive arena with lots of subtleties, for most guys. There are naturals, yes. The guys who do it well (for a time, in most cases) often devote themselves fully to it. I have spent time (more time than I should have) explaining many of those subtleties in one area.

How many marry out of tiredness or desperation?

I wonder how many guys (and girls) get in relationships or marriages not because they really truly want to, but because their dating markets are thin and the courtship process is onerous and annoying.

There’s no way to answer this question, but I bet the number of people who are in relationships because they really truly want to be is smaller than the number of people who are in relationships because they feel they can’t do better, or are tired of flakey chicks, etc. I believe that, subconsciously, I responded well to non-monogamy for a bunch of reasons… one being that it can effectively deal with the large number of flakey chicks out there. One reliable girl is better than 10 flakey ones and if a flakey one shows up on a date with the reliable girl, it’s a win-win.

Get outside of the big cities and you’ll see the dating market get really thin really fast. In that environment, pairing up makes sense, because the good ones won’t be on the market forever. It’s more attractive to be an eternal bachelor in the thicker, dense cities, because there is always new tail around the corner.

Women can think the same thing but the biological clock is working against them to a much greater degree past age 30. So many women in their 30s in the big cities are trending towards spinsterhood because they misuse their valuable assets.

Very few people do things for entirely “rational” reasons (I used to think I knew what “rational” means in general, now I don’t really), and understanding our own internal drives is very difficult.

Game, intelligence, IQ, image match

The players writing about the game almost always have above-average intelligence, and it shows in their writing. This makes sense because you can’t be a total dummy and develop high-level game skills. It’s too complex to learn the skills, integrate the skills, practice the skills, and so on, for real dummies to do this. You have to plan and execute ideas. Some of the things you do may not bear fruit for many months or years (IQ, conscientious, and foresight are correlated). Diet and exercise discipline is hard and takes months or years to see results. You must learn from harsh rejections and cruel women. If you are too stupid to get feedback from women, incorporate the feedback, make changes, and try again, you will fail. The Internet is full of guys doing the same thing over and over again, then complaining about chicks.

We know quite a bit about food and nutrition but it takes time and energy to learn these things, which many people never do. I myself have spent thousands of dollars over the years on coaches, trainers, and physical therapy (to repair damage). These things are impractical for the ignorant… or just stupid. Someone bedazzled by images and unable to learn from reading is probably not going to execute the game effectively. Someone who likes playing video games to the detriment of the rest of his life, same problem.

Don’t want to toot my own horn too much, but I have heard guys who get into this say there are fewer idiots than they expected. To be sure “smart” isn’t everything and smart-enough people can have motivated reasoning problems. Krauser, to use one sample, suffers from a lot of motivated reasoning and racism but his overall IQ can’t be so low. The racism and foolishly anti-immigrant sentiment is linked to his motivated reasoning; he often denies historical and scientific fact that conflicts with his racist, in-group views. Yet his overall IQ is evident from his writing.

Going back to the image match thing, some girls will not sleep with guys below some minimum IQ (or will do so very rarely and in exceptional circumstances, like sports heroes or very hot guys). I’ve had success with smart girls who won’t f**k stupid guys but who are pretty… and they have a small market because plenty of “smart” guys (in a raw IQ sense) smarten themselves out of style, social skills, and game. Think about many engineers and programmers on the autism spectrum. So I can end up pressing a lot of those girls’ buttons very quickly. Some pretty but smart girls have found me almost a relief from the basic guy, and while they are not super common themselves but I have found myself in a lot of situations where they congregate. Dumb girls will often f**k smart guys who are also fun and flirty, so smart guys with game can go down in IQ and still touch on the smarter girls.

It can go the other way, too… for long term relationships… after you have f**ked a girl a couple hundred times, maybe a thousand times… her physical beauty is just not going to be as important as it was the first time you saw her, the first time you got her nude, etc. It won’t be unimportant but it won’t matter as much. Her capacity to say surprising things, learn new things, etc…. that can continue for her entire lifespan. Smarter girls will also understand the importance of fitness and nutrition, and they will have the ability to understand that eating the ice cream today has important negative consequences tomorrow. The smartest people don’t just take in, judge, and evaluate new information… they use that information effectively to make changes. Longer-term relationships work better with girls who are effective than girls who are ineffective. If you are an old enough guy, you have met hot girls, or once hot girls, who have lots of short and medium term relationships but can’t seem to keep the guy. Sometimes the fact is that they are hot but vapid, so a man is happy to f**k her until he’s bored of her. F**k a woman a sufficient number of times and you’re likely not with her anymore just cause she’s hot.

Our society does a poor job teaching guys what chicks want… so guys who want to really know, have to learn for ourselves, and from other guys. This is hard for guys who are blinded by advertising, video games, etc., or guys who are just dumb.

Loneliness and long term versus libido

It seems like there’s some trade-off between loneliness and libido, in a way that I didn’t feel when I was younger. For quite a few years I wanted to f**k as many hot chicks as possible, as often as I could, and when I did that, it was good. Body, soul, and psyche in perfect alignment. I still want to do that, but there is an undercurrent of loneliness and melancholy to random hookups, even with really hot chicks (some of me going on about the subject, here, here, probably some other spots too). That means I should seek something longer term, right?

Then… there is the libido thing… when I see or worse interact with a hot chick, I still want to f**k her. There are some ways to try and minimize the distinction between them… but I don’t think they’re going away, as a trade off.

I don’t have the typical 2,000 words of elaboration on the theme… it’s just a feeling that I’ve had for a while. Life is about contending with problems, not about ease. When I think about the long term, I want companionship. When I think about the next hour, I want a hot wet naked chick writhing underneath me. I think about some of the gorgeous and wonderful women I had writhing underneath me five or seven years ago, and I can barely remember some of them, in some cases. Their effect on the current life is almost zero.

What do I mean by “levels” of game/seduction discussion?

Guys have been asking what I mean when I talk about the “level” a given piece of advice operates at. There are at least two ladders of levels, maybe more. There’s the discussion/pattern ladder, and the game level.

There are GAME levels, and we’ll talk about them first… the first bunch of levels are where the man does almost all of the work, typically. Not always, but usually. Almost always if the woman is attractive. Initially, the man takes the brunt of the rejection. Sex is a fulcrum point. After it, more of the power and rejection ability shifts to the man. Men want to know, “Why won’t she put out? When will she put out?” Women want to know, “Why won’t he commit? Why doesn’t he call me after sex? Why doesn’t he acknowledge my love?” The seduction discussion among men is almost always about getting to sex and its immediate aftermath. The seduction discussion among women is almost always about getting a man who is high status and attractive to commit to a woman. Conversations about getting to sex seem weird a woman, because, for her, sex isn’t hard to get. Some man asks her out and tries to f**k her, and if she says yes, it happens. She can ask almost any straight male she knows to come over, and he will, and he’ll f**k her. On the other side, conversations about getting a high-status man to commit seem a little weird to many men, who haven’t been that high-status man and have spent most of their lives struggling with women. Most men struggle to get a single woman in their lives, let alone a high-status woman who wants to commit.

Women are not stupid (a common refrain around here), and they know that they can have sex quickly and easily if they want it. Many guys, however, don’t understand women and don’t understand that the female discussion is almost always past the “good sex” stage. There are articles about how to bait men into making the first move, especially guys who are +2 in SMV, but the bulk of the discussion happens at the later levels… “Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures” has greater detail. So much advice, from and to both men and women, is garbage because it doesn’t talk about SMV level. Are you accurately assessing your own SMV? The SMV of the person you’re interested in? What that disparity or lack of disparity implies? So much of the discussion doesn’t address raising SMV, which is one big advantage of the red pill discussion, which begins with lifting, fashion, and diet. It’s about raising SMV.

Too much leadup. Some possible levels in the game:

  • Non-verbal indicator of interest (IOI).
  • Approach.
  • Initial rapport/seduction/whatever.
  • Exchange of numbers and contact information.
  • Date / seduction.
  • Kissing/stroking.
  • Bounceback, logistical challenges.
  • Clothes come off.
  • Sex. This is a fulcrum point, and it’s often where the female discussion starts: women want to know how, once a man has high enough status to lay them, to please the man and keep him interested and around. A lot of the male discussion ENDS here.
  • Comfort/aftercare/bonding, especially if the woman has had deep sexual experiences and she doesn’t want to feel cheap/used/etc. Many men fail here. Once they’ve fucked they feel their “job” is done, which is a good way to needlessly hurt a woman. This is where a lot of women don’t want to go home and a lot of men want women to go home. Not universal, obviously.
  • Repeat sex/dates.
  • Where is this going?” conversation. Defining the relationship. That kind of thing. Red Pill guys often stop here, though many don’t even get here.
  • Committed relationships.
  • Cohabitation.
  • Marriage (I think this is a bad deal for men in most Western societies but it’s here for the sake of completeness).
  • Children/family/family structure.

Later on, there is group consciousness, pattern recognition, etc. There is understanding of a woman’s needs, psychologies, etc. And not all women are the same.

A woman who really wants to be monogamous and have a family (these do exist, contrary to what you may read in some parts of the Internet) will be different from the wanton sex positive sluts I have found myself specializing in. A lot of guys can’t get to this stage with any regularity. High-status, high-value guys are much more likely to get here, and low-status guys should work on fixing and raising their status.

These stages can occur over long periods or short periods of time. It’s possible to have a great sexual experience in a bar bathroom half an hour after meeting a chick. It’s also possible to know a chick for months or years before you plunder her.

Discussion/pattern level.

  • The “bottom level” among guys is things like “happy wife, happy life.” Or, “What do women want?” Or, “I don’t understand why she did this thing.” Or, “She says she wants a nice guy but only dates assholes.” Or, putting women on a pedestal. It’s a foggy mixture of confusion, hostility, admiration, and uncertainty. Game strives to demystify this process.
  • The (better) Reddit red pill discussion is a step above that, thankfully. It’s about the need for men to improve: diet, lifting, socializing, etc. It’s about the need to eliminate negative influences like video games, porn, TV, etc. It’s about learning to approach and accept that women like sex and have sexual criteria. Unfortunately it often stops around here.
  • The (worse) Reddit red pill discussion is about how women are evil demons and shrieking harpies and just trying to shake men down for money. This is the “anger phase” that men who discover cheating, men with f**ked up lives, men who have suffered through the divorce and “family” law court system, etc. are facing. Anger is an understandable response to trauma, but it is not the whole story.
  • The evolutionary biology discussion is a step above typical red pill discussion, or at a similar step. It’s about learning long-term patterns of attraction, behavior, and incentives for men and women. It’s about field reports and testing the theory in real life.
  • A step above that is applying patterns to individual cultures and situations.
  • A step above that is seeing women as members of a group but also evaluating them as individuals. We are both at once. Not all women are alike, though one can see patterns.
  • A step to the side of this relates to things like having FMF threesomes, and that sort of thing. Things that are way off most guys’s radar, because most guys don’t get past the beginner issues.

Other thoughts

There is also monogamy/non-monogamy, which for me usually slots between “repeat sex” and “Where is this going?” You can put sex clubs in that zone as well, although sometimes it will appear earlier, in dates/seduction. If a woman says she is not looking for anything serious, thinks monogamy is silly, likes experimenting with drugs, like music festivals, etc., then she’s likely a party girl and an especially good candidate for sexual exploration. A woman who is looking for something serious, wants to have a family, is close with her family, etc., is not as good a candidate. Experienced guys also

Consciousness of the other person’s world(s) might be another, and one I have been talking about lately, maybe because I find myself thinking about ways out of the game… I am not going to be able to get top girls forever and I don’t think I want the rest of my life to be about chasing tail.

Some men also don’t like spending time with women (Krauser seems to be like this) and that impedes relationship/emotion formation. I’m not saying that men automatically have to want relationships or emotional connection but I am noting it.

Other levels could be devised, and I don’t claim this to be exhaustive… some levels could be collapsed and others expanded. “Theory” and “practice” for example are common divisions and those are fine too. You’ll sometimes run into keyboard jockeys who are repeating red pill ideas they found somewhere else, rather than telling stories from their own lives… I push many guys towards writing blogs because I want to read their stories and a large body of writing is often a good way to do a first pass as to whether they’re likely full of shit or not.

Another point around levels is 1. underlying value, 2. game/conveying value and 3. environment. Many guys attracted to red pill and seduction have low value and must raise their value (thus that conversation is happening). Without higher underlying value they will most often image match. A male 5 will find a female 3 – 5. Many guys can raise their value a lot through the standard red pill advice… if it is executed properly. Just like a lot of women can raise their value when they quit sugar, be less bitchy, etc.

A guy with pretty low value who tries to learn “game” is likely to be disappointed… and he is going to have a lot of corrosive interactions with women. Then he is going to sign up at the usual sites and complain about how mean women are, not realizing that he’s seeing his own value reflected back at him. If he is a 5 chasing 7s he is going to have a rough time. If he is a 5 who can raise his value to a 7 the game is still challenging but he will be much more in the game and much less likely to take to Internet fora to write about how women are super duper bad.

Neither men nor women are bad, on average…. there are bad individuals in each group…. if you think half the planet is universally bad… that tells us about you, not about women, or men.

Male value is more malleable than female value and men are more inclined to date up AND down in age range. The “bitter older woman asking where the good men are” genre occurs almost exclusively after age 30 and most often after age 35, when top guys in that age range are dating women in their 20s, or have already married and have families. If you read stories by women about how bad men are, you are almost always reading stories about how a woman is disappointed that a man who is +2 SMV compared to her doesn’t want to be monogamous with her.

This genre about the “good men” deficit exists because women are surprised that their SMV goes down and the guys they could get easily at age 25 are now passing on them or choosing easy sex without commitment. Delusional women think that they primarily desire social status / wealth / confidence / education etc. in men, so they will cultivate those virtues in themselves, only to find men are not totally indifferent to those things, but are not primarily moved by them. I mean, I’d love to have women in my life who make more money than me and are also hot and also want to lavish me with sexual attention, etc., but that is not a typical outcome. Most people see their incomes rise throughout their early lives and incomes tend to peak around age 50, and in the 45 – 60 range. I don’t believe I’ve ever had sex with a woman that old and my interest in it is nonexistent, though maybe one day I will (I won’t be able to get anyone else!) and, for most women, by the time they generate the highest incomes, they are not in my target priority pool. I understand why guys who are uncertain of their value and who don’t bring much are worried about higher-earning women but to be honest if you’re working on value in other fields you should be all right. Half of doctors and a lot of other people in the medical professions are now women and not all of them are unattractive.

“More malleable” status still requires putting in the work, which most guys can’t or won’t. Many guys are also building from shitty foundations, so the foundations must be torn up and rebuilt, and that’s hard. In some ways I have been building value since I was a child… and reaping it throughout my adult life. Many guys also don’t see the higher levels of game, which can get a bit “hippie” like when it comes to raising consciousness, helping others build their value, etc.

For example, there is the endless Internet talk of the “nice” guy. Women like men who are kind… but not men who are weak supplicants hoping to f**k based on being “nice.” Women do like hot, high-status guys who are also kind, not based on trying to get sex, but based on genuine non-reciprocity and conscious decision-making… from a position of strength. I am not a nice guy… I have slept with women who now hate me… I have fired people who needed the job but were bad at it… I have broken rules… I have slept with married women… but I have also been kind, at times. I have given value without getting anything in return. I have helped people, including strangers. I have gone the extra distance. I have played with small children in front of attractive women (I have a fun and favorite story about this subject). By the time I was 20 or 21, however, I had figured out that being “nice” to women is a turn off and demonstration of lower value (DLV) that moves me away from f**king her, not towards f**king her, so I quit doing that.

Do women like nice guys? It depends. Definitely not niceguys, one word. But do they like a guy who they see as having high SMV, who is maybe a little mysterious in some ways, doing something nice for someone else, without any expectation of things in return? Probably. But they also like funny guys… most humor has an edge… if you don’t have an edge, you won’t be that funny. I have made mean comments… told mean jokes… I will again too.

I am getting off topic, but I am overall in favor of Rollo, Reddit’s Red Pill and seduction, etc., even when some guys aren’t, because they the average or low level guy above his most basic level. They clear away a lot of bullshit mystification and set guys up to reach the higher end of their abilities. So that is a net win in my view, even if they tend to cluster at the lower level of the ladders, and I want mostly to talk about the middle and upper end of the ladders… there is a lot of good material on developing underlying game and value in Krauser, in the book Mate, in other places, so I don’t have anything unique to add there. Plus, game can be thought of a little bit like chess in that for good players the first 5 – 10 moves are memorized calls and responses and gamed out… the interesting stuff happens midgame.

But… to go back to the open forums and some blogs… some of these places focus too much on resentment, and how women are bad (they’re not, in most cases, unless men let them be bad…. women are mostly self-interested), how feminism is bad (modern feminism is bad, I agree, and I’m glad someone wants to fight that fight, but I don’t), etc. These places rarely have any talk about how to get guys from the medium level into the higher levels. I doubt most guys who get to the higher levels spend time in these places. The places with voting, tend to have strong crab-bucket mentality, in which low-level guys downvote anything that they can’t perceive, because it’s too high level for them to understand or get. Many of them are in the “anger” phase when they realize they’ve been lied to for much of their lives and that they would have been better off lifting heavy weights in high school than “being themselves,” soulfully waiting for some flighty teen girl to notice them, but she didn’t, cause she was off f**king a wrestler.

Without knowing where a guy is… it’s hard to address his needs, beliefs, etc. I have spent time at the lower parts of this ladder, with lots of limiting beliefs, etc., that meant I didn’t perform where I should have performed. That said I have not had some of the physical, intellectual, and social problems that some guys describe. I have not married the wrong woman and then suffered divorce-rape. I have not had some of the extremely bitter and caustic experiences some guys have, which damages their psychologies. I have had plenty of negative experiences with women, but none of the truly awful ones. Some of that has been luck and I don’t deny luck’s role. I have had a lot of luck! Given my love of raw dogging… a lot, lot of luck. Some of it though has been a decent amount of work building and protecting value. I also had a pretty early sense of reciprocity and value exchange… so if a woman was trying to take value without offering any in return, I was (somewhat) good at protecting myself from that. Not perfectly because in my teens and early 20s I was scared of top girls lavished a lot of attraction-killing retention, followed them around like a puppy, listened to their stories about the guys they really liked or were fucking, etc. I needed eye-contact work and escalation work. But I was never as low as some guys are/were, and I had some things going for me.

The bottom-level discussion online has clarified things for me, taught me things, made vague ideas concrete. I don’t scorn that level of discussion. Many guys need it. The absence of top-level discussion is revealing… it tells us about the state of the masses. That’s why I began writing the blog… I realized that in other venues, almost no guys faced the “where is this going?” conversation, and wouldn’t understand the dilemmas faced by guys who get it regularly. I realized that the high-level discussion of sex clubs for players would have no role. Most often the response would be “cuck lol.” For a guy who struggles to get and maintain one woman… who is worried about losing her… who is unsure about his own status… this response makes a lot of sense. I get where he’s coming from. He’s playing a risky game with rewards he can’t perceive. For a guy who struggles with liking women and wanting to maintain them while also achieving sexual novelty… this strategy can make sense. Where a guy is will condition his response.

There’s also nothing wrong with being a beginner… almost all of us start there… but most guys never seem to get past the most beginner of beginning stage.

It’s perfectly normal of course for a guy to be high level and not like what I’m doing. But a guy who is at the lower levels… he can probably barely understand what I’m doing, or the problems I’m familiar with facing.

In real life I meet plenty of guys who never get past the lowest levels. They’ve had one or a very few girlfriends they got by luck and circumstance. They don’t understand women. Maybe they got married and now their marriage is stale and they don’t understand why. Their wife or girlfriend isn’t intersted in sex with them. They stay together “for the sake of the kids” without understanding what is wrong. They “got lucky” with her. They say, “She’s the boss” (words that have never passed my lips and never will). They tolerate bad behavior because they think they have to. Plenty of guys never get past these levels… and they can still get a woman of some kind, have kids eventually, pass on their genes, etc., but the sense of mystery and frustration never ends. It troubles them when they are watching sports or playing video games… then their team does the thing, or their video game makes a fake fitness demand on them, and the trouble vanishes, cause the team just did the thing or the video game requires a move.

The red pill and seduction communities exist to boost these guys. Plenty of them will accept the boost… but not that many will go all the way… I am interested in the ones who want to go all the way, who want to play the game but also understand the game, who want to seduce women but also improve the women who are open to being improved and worth of being improved, the ones who want to master the game so they can move past the game.

I don’t submit myself as one who has surpassed the game or one who is at the highest levels… I can see the higher levels, I believe. Chances are I can never reach most guys cause most guys are at the lower levels or if they aren’t they will never find this. I can keep trying to do a little better, though.

Types of girls and dangers of most seduction techniques

Redpill and seduction communities are focused on hot young party girls. And that’s fine! Great, even. I’ve spent loads of time chasing and attempting to f**k and sometimes even f**king these girls, so I’m well familiar with them and why redpill and seduction guys give the advice they (we) do. But the girls who have either quit that phase or who have never really been in it… they are not going to accept a lot of techniques you’ll hear the most about. You need to master the game to move beyond the game, if you want to find and get them… a theme I have been blathering on about lately. Those girls might be much more interested in your underlying value and your commitment willingness, rather than your party f**k-boy manslut ways.

Today’s discussion begins from me, noticing that “women are the ultimate red pillers. Men are just noticing what’s already there,” regarding some chick’s conversation with her hypergamous friend,

Then FortWorthPlay said, “NEVER feel bad for using Dread Game..they secretly love it and it makes their panties wet.” I’m not so sure…

Depends on the girl I think…. one who is psychologically healthy and really wants a relationship/family needs very little dread, and a very light touch. She’ll reject a guy who does dread game on her.

Most basic college/party girls, yeah, sure.

‘Types’ are important here.

Types” is a Nash point… one I have adopted… I have been “a certain type of player” and also Nash has written about “types” on this blog, “First off, you’re doing something SMART here by starting with some TYPES. It is a simple fact that we are not all the same, and by defining some types… we can introduce some tools and immediately know that they are not for everyone, but that doesn’t make them invalid. With that said… for me the ‘poly’ community is a fucking mess.”

Types. Environments. I have been most consumed by chasing hot chicks in the city. Big-city girls, and particularly young ones, are also more likely to be hunting fun sexual experiences from the ever-discussed “alpha males.” I have spent some time in smaller cities for work and they have a less feral sex culture. Women and men marry earlier. Children are more common. Divorce may be more common as wel but that is a separate point.

Continue reading “Types of girls and dangers of most seduction techniques”