How much texting should you do to get the girl? Less than you think

On Red Pill a guy has a post, “Being good at texting won’t get you laid” (the argument is what you’d expect from the title), and the comments have posts from younger guys saying things like,

Gen z girls operate with texting and establishing some kind of banter ESPECIALLY if you havent fucked her yet.

You will defo have to establish some rapport if shes 18-24ish. These girls were born and raised with social media.

Good luck cold approaching them and instantly scheduling a date over text.

Text skills are needed. Not saying be a dancing clown at all but guys here act like its illegal to build a little rapport behind the phone

Or…

I don’t know how old you are guys but I’m 19 years old, generation Z 50% or more of our communication is with text especially girls. You can’t just do what the red pill says and “text for logistics” and succeed most gen Z girls will flake on you if you do that even if you’re good looking because they have so many options you have to build comfort through text.

Having fucked a fair number of gen Z girls (one sample story, and Ms. Slav is Gen Z, and there are some others I haven’t written about…), I don’t think this is particularly true, “most gen Z girls will flake on you if you do that,” because Gen Z girls are still girls… they like fun, interesting, and exciting guys… just like all girls, everywhere, for all time.

If you are the guy doing things and going places, you’re inviting her along for the ride. If she misses the ride, she knows you’re going to be meeting and talking to other girls (and fucking them).

Do things. The time spent “building comfort over text” is better spent doing things, meeting girls, and talking to girls.

The whole frame of “you have to build a lot of comfort over text” is wrong. Continue reading “How much texting should you do to get the girl? Less than you think”

There’s no money in it

The coronavirus world must be creating desperation because multiple guys have, independently, been asking why I don’t sell the book or hawk coaching, and I think the subtext is, they’re thinking about giving one or both a go. I’m not opposed to other guys doing either, but from what I can tell almost no one is making money from books or coaching, and in my view most guys are better off going to coding school or learning a skilled trade, depending on their underlying IQ, because those are the fields where the money is… go where the money is, not where it isn’t. If you doubt being a skilled tradesman has some money involved, call a plumber or electrician, or a general contractor, and get some bids/estimates.

Compared to a real job, I don’t think I can make real money selling books, and I’m not convinced any one is making real money at game coaching. Maybe Tom Torero and/or Krauser did at one point, or do, but Krauser in particular has written exceptional material. For me, sex clubs + game is niche within niche… they’re both niche… and don’t have, from what I can see, a larger addressable market… I also think most guys don’t (really, actually) care much about getting laid. If they did, their lives would be different. At any given moment, a tiny number of guys are really improving their lives and getting laid… the rest are watching TV, playing video games, on social media (with nothing to show cause their lives are boring), etc. etc. Me trying to make money from the book, or from a memoir (I appreciate the encouragement, don’t get me wrong), is like a young girl thinking she can make real money in pr0n. She probably can’t, though she can go through the industry wringer for a couple months, and in the process destroy her real-world reputation. Smart girls, meanwhile, are becoming nurses or teachers. Maybe it makes sense for a pretty girl to do some light escorting while she’s becoming a nurse or teacher… that’s deniable later on.

There are a number of career/finance posts scattered amid the moral carnage of this blog, like Don’t end the week with nothing, and I’ll offer that advice when I see it, but the best advice is almost always hard to implement and takes many years to pay off. Continue reading “There’s no money in it”

U.S. politics is defined by the structure of the American constitution:

Political science geekery ahead… if you want actionable stuff about the game, though, we have that too… but politics is also a form of game theory, like the game itself.

The U.S. looks insane to the rest of the world because of some apparently minor political structures that over-power rural states and under-power urban ones. If you read The Federalist Papers (don’t worry, you won’t), you’ll see the concern about balancing powers among states expressed repeatedly. A quick history lesson: the American Revolutionary War (or “The war of the ungrateful colonists” depending on where you are) lasted from 1775 – 1783, and at the end of if the U.S. states created a joint and ineffective government guided by a document called the Articles of Confederation, which didn’t allow for sufficient coordination among the states; that ineffective document led to the creation of a Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the ensuing document was eventually ratified by the states in 1789.

Way back then, smaller states were worried about being bullied by larger states, and, to prevent that from happening, and to prevent the usurpation of the presidency by a tyrant, the U.S. Senate was designed to give each state two senators, irrespective of the state’s size, and the Electoral College was created to put a barrier between the possibly tyrannous will of the people and the power of the presidency.

The world had very little experience with democracy back then, and the states’s representatives were more like start-up founders than CEOs implementing a mature business process. They had no idea what the f**k they were doing and did the best they could with the limited experience they had at the time. Those features may have seemed good in the agrarian period when they were created, but since then the Electoral College has shifted from “stop tyrants if necessary” to “vote according to the vote of the people of a given state.” In modern presidential elections, that means only a handful of states matter, and the votes in those states count for far more than the votes of other states. At the same time, the ratio of the population of the smallest states and largest states has grown enormously. Montana has just a million people in it, and Idaho has just 1.7 million, while California has 40 million. Yet Idaho and Montana between them have double the Senate representation California does. A fairer alternate Senate system might have two senators per state, and distribute those senators by state lines whenever possible, but also attempt to use a non-partisan commission to distribute senators. In a system like that, Idaho and Montana might have two senators, but California, Texas, and New York might have 3 – 4 senators (getting us closer to the “one person, one vote” ideal).

Instead, we have a system in which some rural votes are far more valuable than other rural votes. It’s also proven to be internationally true that, the more urban an area is, the more it votes towards the left. But the U.S. has a peculiar system that disproportionately empowers rural areas, and that’s had big international consequences over the last 20 years.

Continue reading “U.S. politics is defined by the structure of the American constitution:”

XBTUSD on his first non-monogamy experiences

XBTUSD has a follow-up post, which will make sense in the context of his earlier post.

TRQ asked about my first experience with non monogamy where I was with a girl who was not my partner.

I started to move into ethical non-monogamy (ENM) by changing the structure of the “dating” phase of relationships. Where I live, everyone assumes everyone is seeing/fucking other people until an explicit define the relationship (DTR) conversation happens. A clock starts running when you know that past a certain point, even though it was not made explicit, if your girl found out you were sleeping with another girl, she’d be angry even if technically she had no right to be (girls don’t readily accept emotional contracts). I started making the implicit contract we all sign (when we start dating people) explicit. I’d tell girls right from the starting point (first date) that I only wanted to be in non-monogamous relationships and that I didn’t want to be in any sort of committed relationship at the current moment. I like to call most relationships with an implicit contract “escalator” relationships: men know that once they start dating a girl the clock starts ticking and the girl will try and move you up the escalator as quickly as possible:

non exclusive → exclusive → meet friends → boyfriend → meet family → move in → marriage → children

Women compete for status by their ability to extract resources from high status men, and therefore it’s socially desirable to compare where they are in the relationship escalator with their friends, and in turn men throughout the years have come up with every possible way to drag their feet and slow this process. Women lose status when they can’t get you to the next step in a socially acceptable amount of time because time is the most precious resource a woman has. In the same way companies have “title” inflation to keep dumb millennials around without paying them more, men have used “title” inflation in a relationship context to keep women around longer by giving them new titles that come with no true concessions and resource investments on our part. Amongst Gen Z “exclusive” but not in a relationship is now a thing?

How can you exit this whole maddening structure? Give women the information, let them take responsibility for their choices. Rather than living in the world of don’t ask don’t tell about the other people we all know we’re seeing, I started being explicit about exactly what women could expect from me, and it was life changing. In many ways, I wasn’t doing anything that different than anyone else does when dating where I live, I was just being candid about it.

The first true extra partner experience I had once I was in a committed non monogamous relationship was actually initiated by my girlfriend (we can call her Sarah). Sarah had the highest sex drive of anyone I had ever been with, and was very sexually open. We had talked about having a threesome with a girl but she had said she wasn’t attracted to girls. She was a big drinker, and generally (like most people) became much wilder when she was drinking. One night I was at a big outdoor EDM show, rolling (MDMA) with a big crew of people and her and one of my female friends (Corey) just started making out. Corey was married to another friend of mine (Andrew). Andrew and I chatted and agreed we were both down to have a foursome. We went back to our place and had the standard hetero foursome where everyone fucks but the two dudes don’t touch each other at all. Andrew was cool with it but was slightly nervous so a lot of it was Corey and Sarah hooking up and us watching. I felt no fear/disgust/nervousness but rather was super turned on by the whole thing. I think a big part of it was that I knew everyone so well. It was hard to imagine feeling threatened by the interaction. A week later we all got together and debriefed and everyone agreed they had a great time. No latent jealousy, misunderstandings etc. Continue reading “XBTUSD on his first non-monogamy experiences”

XBTUSD on his non-monogamy experiences

Reader and regular commenter XBTUSD sent this essay on his experiences with non-monogamy and related topics.

I’ve been exploring the non-monogamous world for around seven years and have had a myriad of experiences pretty different than TRQ’s, and I hope sharing them might be valuable to his audience: I really respect the community he’s built [editor’s note: community of lunatics?], his writing style, and the quality of the discussions in the comments section. Maybe my experiences can serve as a useful counterpoint to TRQ’s and we can compare and contrast.

I first heard about ethical non-monogamy (ENM) at work, teaching a room full of people when my high school girlfriend called me (she had become a close friend after we stopped dating) to tell me about the threesome she’d with her new boyfriend. I was in my late 20s, had never had a threesome or even come close, and was thrilled to hear that this type of thing was happening for real. She’d recently moved out to SF and had gotten immersed in the ENM/psychedelic/tech scene out there, and her and the BF were exploring ENM. She’d always been one of the most sexually open women I’ve met—in high school, we used to go to concerts and have competitions to see who could make out with the most people—so none of this shocked me. The part of the story that did surprise me was that for the month following the threesome, they’d been having the best sex of their lives. This was a huge shift for me in terms of what I saw as possible.

Continue reading “XBTUSD on his non-monogamy experiences”

Non-monogamy and polyamory’s dark sides

Bo Winegard tweets,

Educated elites who believe that polyamory can be practiced and enjoyed by most of the population remind me of the math professor who believes differential equations are within the grasp of anyone who makes a serious attempt at learning.

There exists compelling research that normative monogamy is beneficial and leads to myriad positive social externalities.

Polyamory is fine as a niche relationship modality, practiced mostly among the extremely WEIRD [Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic].

He’s right, particularly regarding people who want real families (a topic we’ll come back to in a moment). Despite what you’ve read here, I buy this Bo Winegard argument… we’re also not willing as a society to have an honest conversation about what’s happening below the IQ median. The people driving the conversation at the top really don’t have any idea what’s happening down there, and choose deliberately not to. They don’t really understand what it’s like to not have the cognitive capacity to get top-end jobs or have the conversations non-monogamous people need if their relationships are going to survive.

Nash follows up with…

“Burning Man style: POLYAMORY is more standard than monogamy. Men get the variety they want. They think sharing their women and it’s a ‘form of love evolution’ (they are no longer jealous), but what is happening is it pretty much destroys most of those relationships.”

“In ‘Burning Man’ it’s fine to take off your clothes and dance around really sexually. If you were at your grandma’s house having dinner (or around children), and you did that, would it ‘open everyone’s heart?’ Or would it create a fiasco? It would create a fiasco.”

Those are from David Deida talks. Deida’s more right than wrong, right now… poly/open is a fiasco in all instances except, basically, as casual sex, which is how I do them. Some light swinging can work too, especially in very long term relationships (that get stale and need some more heat). A very small number of people can really do them as described. Mostly, “poly” and “open” are about rationalizing casual sex (which is how I use it… because it’s a form of normalizing and institutionalizing casual sex for me, I don’t get caught up on the terminology). In that post from two years ago, Nash said, “for me the ‘poly’ community is a fucking mess. I live in CA and I am surrounded by these folks… and it’s an ugly shitshow. I watch guys ‘try’ this all the time, and they are a fucking sad bunch, mostly.” “Mostly” he’s right. The guys doing this at the higher end are also focused on one guy and two women, and they often don’t highly advertise what they’re doing. Most top guys don’t want to advertise what they’re doing. A lot of chicks also don’t want to come out as sharing a guy with another chick. Continue reading “Non-monogamy and polyamory’s dark sides”

What does “quality girl” mean?

Online, there is endless discussion of how to seek out and identify “quality” girls, whatever that means… “quality” in a girl is tricky, since most girls, like men, have some good and some bad points. A lot of guys who think they want “quality,” who say they want “quality,” really want to convert a hot sexually adventurous slut into a housewife (rarely works well, but give it a go if you like… please don’t come whining to the Internet if it doesn’t). If you go for girls who are -1 or -2 relative to you in sexual market value (SMV), you can probably get a girl who will invest heavily in you… if she’s not that hot, though, you won’t want her, and you won’t care about how she returns your texts promptly and does other “nice” girl things. A lot of guys “want” a girl who is hot, a sex fiend (for him and him alone), absurdly loyal (perhaps not demanding fidelity in return), mentally stable, has an even-keeled personality, and perhaps has other desirable traits too. Girls who combine all those qualities in a single slender body are not that common… and they tend to have a lot of suitors to choose from. Supply and demand, mate. A guy who wants all those things is the male equivalent of women who want a guy who is over six feet tall, makes a lot of $$$, has good social skills, prioritizes her and her attention needs, etc. etc. These guys too exist, but in small numbers, and they tend to have lots of options, which they often like to exercise, vigorously and horizontally.

Sometimes vertically, too, for the sake of variety.

A lot of girls aren’t honest about what they really want… superficially they say they want a “relationship” (with a top guy, which is unstated), but in reality their behaviors indicate they want to get f**ked a lot (by a hot guy, or when they’re horny). “I got drunk and it just ‘happened'” is not the statement of a girl who really wants a relationship. Thing is… a lot of guys aren’t honest either. A lot of guys aren’t truly working to improve themselves, and their results are consistent with that. I tweeted a while ago, “most guys don’t really care that much about getting laid.” If they do care about getting laid, they’ll quit video games, prioritize the gym, eat no sugar, and do the other things common to guys who get laid, as opposed to guys who don’t, or guys who say they want to but don’t align their behavior with that stated want. Continue reading “What does “quality girl” mean?”

Sailor socialist girl doesn’t care, and it’s not about economic systems

The conversation in the last post turned towards what “socialist” and “feminist” identifying girls mean… and the answer is usually, “not much,” because most conversations are about expressing feelings and hierarchy… the number of “socialists” who even understand what that entails is minimal. When she says she’s a socialist, she’s expressing what she sees as a “caring” underlying value and framing you as “uncaring” by comparison. The number of people interested in ideas is small. A lot of male nerd engineers treat all conversations like engineering problems and consequently don’t get laid much because their engineering mindset, while important at school and work, repels feelings-based women.

When she says she’s a socialist… she doesn’t really care.

She’s not a policymaker.

Her vote doesn’t make a big difference in her life.

There’s a big gap between any functional country and Venezuela… it will take a really long time for any functional country to hit Venezuela or Soviet Union or Cuba levels… she wants to feel good, to feel taken care of, to make other people feel like they’ll be taken care of… Mark J says in the comments, “Debating Western girls like this, (usually white, middle class with a college education paid for by daddy who I guarantee you made his money in a very unsocialist fashion, is a waste of time.) The only appropriate response is to ignore her or ridicule her.” I disagree a bit… “ridicule” never changes minds and doesn’t get guys laid… “ignore her” makes more sense, particularly for a guy looking to get laid, not teach basic economics.

Continue reading “Sailor socialist girl doesn’t care, and it’s not about economic systems”

Curiosity leads to sexual freedom… and threesomes… and storytelling

I was reading a good book about storytelling, A Curious Mind: The Secret to a Bigger Life, by Brian Glazer (the hollywood producer) and a journalist named Charles Fishman (red pill dad on storytelling). It’s narrated by Glazer… and he has good advice for players… like, “Most of the best things that have happened in my life are the result of curiosity. And curiosity has occasionally gotten me in trouble. But even when curiosity has gotten me in trouble, it has been interesting trouble.” I should list some ways curiosity has gotten me into interesting trouble, but a look through the archives will yield a cornucopia of material… when “Libido Girl” first proposed a sex party to me, I was curious, and many years later I am still involved. Glazer says he is “not the least bit embarrassed to ask questions.” A guy should be the same, although, with girls, it’s often better to make statements or assumptions. Don’t ask, “Did you get a job making coffee because you like coffee?” Instead, “I bet you got that gig so you can flirt with the sexy customers.” As the conversation evolves some questions are fine & normal, but too many questions to an unresponsive girl feels like an interview. Some girls, however, are bad at flirting and non-responsive… but if she keeps complying despite being boring, you might find her complying all the way into bending over, with the underwear you slid off her tossed aside.

Continue reading “Curiosity leads to sexual freedom… and threesomes… and storytelling”