Bizarrely, Pamela Anderson is the voice of reason: “You know what you’re getting into if you’re going into a hotel room alone”

I’m as surprised as anyone by “Pamela Anderson Doesn’t Care If You Disagree With Her Hollywood Sexual-Harassment Stance: ‘Backlash Is Good’:”

“You know what you’re getting into if you’re going into a hotel room alone,” Anderson explained on Thursday’s program. “Don’t go into a hotel room alone. If someone answers the door in a bathrobe, leave. This is things that are common sense, but I know Hollywood is very seductive and the people want to be famous. Sometimes you think you are going to be safe with an adult in a room. I don’t know where this security comes from, but somehow I dodged it all.” She also recounted her sole encounter with Weinstein while working on the film Superhero Movie, whom she called “very intimidating.”

I wouldn’t have thought Pamela Anderson would be one of the very few sane voices in the mainstream media, but she is. She also seems to want women to be treated like adults, rather than children (or adults when it’s convenient and children when it’s not).

There is not much to this post apart from surprise and a statement that it’s pleasant to see someone, somewhere, stand up for personal responsibility, rather than calling for witch hunts and infantilization.

Some other women who stand up for personal responsibility include Camille Paglia and Laura Kipnis. Too many so-called “feminists” are just whiners and complainers.

The best books for learning game

On The Red Pill someone asked about the best books for learning game: I still think guys should start with Neil Strauss, The Game and Rules of the Game. They are somewhat dated and anything about “negging” should be ignored, at least at first. “Negging” is really push-pull or what Torero and Krauser call “fractionation.” The rest of the book is still more right than not, and Neil Strauss is a very good writer. Both books are also “mainstream” enough to give to your friends, even as a joke. Neil Strauss describes how he read evolutionary biology books that reinforced and supported the game he was learning.

For clueless guys and even some intermediate guys, it’s helpful to understand biological programming. Whether you want it to or not, biology drives us more than culture. Women don’t have that much choice in who they are attracted to, just like guys don’t. Guys can try to force themselves to be attracted to older or fatter women, but it just doesn’t work, right? The number of 45 or 50 year old women a guy will be attracted to is very close to zero, unless the guy himself is aged 60+. A 22-year-old hottie will make any guy look twice, especially over his 45-year-old wife. Maybe he’ll overcome his primal urge through conscious effort but it will remain. Girls are the same way but their criteria is not exactly the same for reasons that make sense from an evolutionary biology perspective.

I actually don’t think it matters very much where you start with game books, as long as you read a lot and more importantly immediately try to apply what you read. Too much reading in the absence of practice is masturbatory.

What else a guy should read depends on where he starts and what sticking points he has. Guys in high school and college will have different needs and ecosystems than guys who are 30 or 40 or 40+. If guys in high school and college try London daygame cold approach or Strauss-Mystery Method they are going to become weird outcasts quickly. They need more friendship, social circle, and connection techniques. Some techniques and mindsets described by London daygame and Strauss-Mystery are still applicable, but “cold approach” is for big, anonymous cities.

“Sticking points” will occur at different levels. For example the Reddit user MattyAnon suggests The Sex God Method, and that is a good book but will be of less use to very inexperienced guys. For guys who are getting laid but are not skilled or confident enough in bed it will be extremely useful, maybe even essential. The book She Comes First is also useful.

One of the best game posts I’ve read is by Krauser, “Reveal vs Restructure,”

I think it comes down to which side of this divide you fall on. Is your Journey a process of:

* Uncovering a pre-existing SMV and personality that is attractive to women, or;

* Ridding yourself of a Pussy Repellent virus and then building an attractive man from scratch.

A guy who is uncovering preexisting value will be different from a guy who has to build a lot of value. The latter guy may be a fat, psychologically messed up guy who needs to learn how to cook, how to quit eating sugar, how to use the gym, how to move his body, how to dress himself properly and get his clothes tailored, and why he needs to physically move to a city and get out of suburbs or rural areas. And he must start now and results may not come for a very long time. But he has no choice. He must struggle, or pay for it, or be alone.

Although this isn’t a book, I like the website Good Looking Loser because it’s about an attractive guy overcoming his own psychological barriers. There are a lot of attractive guys who need help with that. Some attractive guys have limiting beliefs and other issues that prevent them from achieving up to their level.

For books, I just wrote about the Torero book Daygame, and that is a good read. Krauser has good books too. There is a purple pill book, Mate, by evolutionary biologist Geoffrey Miller and writer Tucker Max, and I think it’s worth reading as well.

For guys who need help with fitness, Starting Strength is good and so is the 5×5 method or any number of others. The important thing is to start and make some progress.

Many people like the Mark Manson book Models. It isn’t my favorite but so many guys like it that I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention it.

Over time it is very important to understand how women think and how women evaluate men. There isn’t a single book that is best for this subject but all of the books recommended will help build this mental map.

My Secret Garden is all about women’s depraved sex fantasies, so if you have trouble realizing that chicks want to be totally dominated and used hard by the right guy, read it. Women prefer written porn and guys prefer visual porn, so to understand what gets women off you need to read, while also realizing that erotic material has its place but also often differs from real life.

Personally, I used to read a lot more novels than I do now. Great fiction is still wonderful but so much fiction is about people who are psychologically damaged or who are just dumb. For game-aware guys, watching fictional guys step on their dicks is painful. Usually the answer to their dilemmas is “escalate,” “lift,” or “find a new girl.” In most novels the answer is to keep pouring attention into a single hot girl, who by the end of the story comes around, exactly like most girls don’t in real life.

There is still great fiction but it is usually not about relationships. Right now I am halfway through a novel called Kingdom of the Wicked that is fun but not mainly about sexual strategy. Vary what you read or you will get bored.

If you haven’t already, on your journey you will also learn that there is life beyond game and that without personality and outside interests, you will never break into the highest girl tier for longer-term relationships, whether open or closed. Sex is like oxygen or water, because when you’re getting enough it recedes in importance, and when you’re not getting enough it becomes the focal point of your entire life (not my original metaphor but it’s a good one). When you’re confident that you can get acceptable sex in a tolerable timeframe your whole outlook changes and that is what people mean by “abundance mentality.” It’s not just a mentality, it’s a fact of existence. Abundance mentality ensures that no chick can occupy your entire mental space without your consent.

The more you read and learn, the more you will realize how most people, including most girls, are dumb.

“More than half of U.S. kids will be obese by the time they’re 35, study predicts”

More than half of U.S. kids will be obese by the time they’re 35, study predicts.” No shit. Just look around. Outside of a handful of elite enclaves (L.A., Denver), the United States is full of fatties stuffing simple sugars into their faces. Anyone who wants supernormal outcomes must put forth supernormal effort.

If you want good results, don’t be like the fatties. Quit sugar.

Tom Torero’s memoir-textbook “Daygame”

I’m smacking my head after reading this:

I asked her to bring me a present costing no more than £1, and I’d do the same. It’s an “investment routine” that I’v used many times since, which gets the girls to commit to the date and not flake – they spend the week thinking of what to get you.

The quote is from Tom Torero’s Daygame and the suggestion is brilliant and easy. I wish I’d thought of this ten years ago. Being good at anything is the accumulation of thousands of small details. This suggestion is one and it must improve pipeline retention. People can also usually only hold a single thing in their mind at a time, so if she’s thinking about the present she’s not thinking about whether she ought to flake.

If you are doing any amount of game and earn more than $5 per hour you need to read this book, as it may save you many many hours through suggestions like the one above. The ones you find most useful will be different from the ones I find most useful. Guys will get more from reading one comprehensive book than 100 random, fragmented blog posts. Daygame puts many seduction pieces together. The simplest parts of game are the very beginning (when there isn’t much to do apart from opener, vibe, and stack) and the very end (the actual sex). It’s the middle where the action happens and for that reason most of Daygame is about the middle, just like most of the Internet posts are about the beginning or end, where guys need the least instruction.

There are too many lessons in Daygame to list them all, but I like: “Either interactions go well, or they’re just funny stories.” Exactly right and you have permission to take the pressure off. Be fizzy and exciting. There are an infinite number of possibilities out there and while I’ve done many things right, I’ve also spent too much of my life taking things with women too seriously. That has almost always been a mistake. Learn to let go and be light, rather than heavy.

Some of the lessons regularly readers of this blog-memoir will recognize: “This whole story, and other ones in the book, show that deleting details is a bad move, as you never know when circumstances change and a number sparks to life again.” Remember “Snapchat in Game?” That’s what I’m saying there. Girls are mercurial and pretty random, and you never know when one is going to turn back around into you. It is unwise to rely exclusively on rebounds but you will get some when you get good.

The psychology behind seduction and seducers is also of interest, at least to me. In the beginning Torero writes that “By the age of 23 I had slept with 2 women.” No wonder he later became a PUA. I had a relatively normal adolescent and college experience, as I started having sex on the early side of normal and never stopped. I waas at or close to what PUA guys call “abundance mentality.”I had crushes and oneitis problems, like most guys, but my past is nothing like Torero’s. Unlike many guys I’ve never had a long drought (except in my 20s when my now-ex had our second daughter, but that’s another story). That may be why I’m tiring of the game and grind while some older guys still love it. I feel like I’ve done it too long.

I don’t want to claim that I was a master seducer. I wasn’t. I’m not now. My younger self mostly had what I would now call eco system game: school and sports. Because I was obsessed with my sport I built up a solid body and solid group of people I knew. That continued into a job involving it, and into college. Also, as players know, the better your body the better your dating life will go (within limits and subject to diminishing returns like every other activity… I have known gym rats who’d be better served cutting their two hours a day in the gym and meeting actual girls) and that is particularly true among younger girls. Of course looks alone are not enough and especially for women a guy’s looks are linked to his status. But I do think I’ve coasted on looks and things like quitting sugar have been to a boon to both my physical self and confidence. Looks are also more important for online dating than off, in my experience, and quitting sugar while lifting assists here too.

At the end of the book Torero is a sage:

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better your vibe, the better your approaches and dates go, and the better they go, the better your vibe. I felt like I was indestructible.

It’s fun reading these hybrid memoir-textbooks, as they teach me about the writer but also about the reader. My game has never been as tight as many of these guys, and there is a concept or slider in pop psychology that may explain why: some people are “satisficers” and others are “maximizers.” As the terms imply, satisficers keep trying until the satisfaction point for their drive or desire, while maximizers want to reach the highest possible level or state. For someone doing game a maximizer seeks some combination of the absolute hottest, younger, most loyal girls, or maybe the most extreme experiences (like three ways).

Satisficers however seek “good enough” and stop there and that has mostly described me. Which explains why I have never had the energy to really press for achievements like Torero’s. To be sure I’ve had success and some crazy stories, a few of which I’ve shared here, but nothing like the quantity of women described in Daygame. Generally I find one I like and get into a mini relationship that generally lasts three to twenty-four months. Then I begin cranking again.

At first I wasn’t consciously doing this, but over time I realized it. I think I am just too lazy to bother getting really good, but this doesn’t bother me much and I’m glad there are guys who go all the way. Reading about the Elon Musks of seduction is fascinating. I’ve had some high eights and nines and while they were wonderful, the truth is that when I’m in a woman I don’t care that much about whether she’s a decent seven or a high eight. The latter is better but in my life, especially now, there aren’t a lot of high eights out there. A while ago I dated a girl who was 19 and IMO a solid 8, with things only breaking down about 20 months in when she demanded to move in and I said no. But even with a solid 8, by the 50th or 100th sex session a guy acclimates to her body. She normalizes.

Back to Torero. Interspersed among the stories are big-picture ideas, like this:

When it comes to seduction, girls don’t want logic, they want emotions. The problem is that guys approach dating and daygame from a logical perspective, when really what they should be getting better at is seeing it from the female perspective.

Absolutely. Definitely an error I made when I was younger. The book is filled with mentions of mistakes I have made. If the next generation of guys internalize these ideas maybe they will avoid the mistakes. Most guys of course are too lazy to read books, so they will make the same errors, but the knowledge is there.

If I have a criticism of the book it is that it doesn’t look enough at the dark side. Intense gaming can be isolating and very few guys share the need to do intense game. In addition I read one of Krauser’s books in which he describes Torero going deep into the void in the 2012 – 13 period. That has been excised from this book, so one would never know it. Almost all positive things also have their shadow, and the lack of shadow here makes me doubt it more than I otherwise would.

Torero also mentions going to Oxford and studying with Richard Dawkins, but he eventually becomes a primary school teacher. Perhaps the UK is different from the U.S., but in the U.S. it’s very rare for graduates of elite universities to go into low status, low pay professions like primary school teaching. So why’d he do it? What led him there? We don’t know. Maybe it isn’t important. But it seems strange from an American reader’s eyes.

 

Bike Girl: Good and Bad

Good:

1. Sex. Does everything I want. Likes being submissive. Likes the sex tapes. Sex is extremely good. She follows well and trusts me to lead.

2. Fitness. Not much into lifting but likes yoga. A solid seven who is considerably younger than me and deeply into me: probably not that uncommon for the top game guys, but not that common for guys not putting in much effort, I think. Her food habits aren’t great but I bring them up.

3. Likes to read, or reads when I read. A lot of girls demand constant stimulation or spend their lives staring into their phones; when I read she reads.

4. Seems to like me. There are a lot of girls who will have a lot of sex, but they don’t seem to really like me that much (or the guy they’re dating, if they’re dating someone else and I’m observing them). Don’t really get why this dynamic happens but it’s common enough to note it.

5. Strong feminine vibes. Again, hard to define what this means but I know it when I see it.

6. We had our first four-way (switching with another couple) and it went well. When I have more than two minutes I’ll write about that. It was pretty standard from my perspective and pretty standard is very good.

Bad:

1. Messiness. Extremely messy apartment, although she’s tried to make an effort to change because she can figure out my reaction to it. This will prevent any attempt at co-habitation.

2. Kind of basic. Hard to describe exactly what this means too, but she’s not that smart and not that motivated. I think she’s a gallon of water that takes the shape of whatever man she pours herself into. But it sounds like she’s not had a lot of long-term relationships, so maybe she just goes from guy to guy. Because I don’t believe most of what women say (everyone has a narrative) I can’t judge her relationship past well. She speaks well of exes, which is a good sign in my view. When I’m not around I think she’s on her phone all the time, but she can turn it off when I’m around. For now.

3. Related to #2, I think she wants a way out of the office grind and sees me as a potential way out. I downplay income stuff deliberately but if you’re around someone long enough they put it together. Plus one of my go-to lines is, “I’m used to telling people what to do.” Which is somewhat true but also works well.

4. A little clingy. Not real bad, and this could be a “good” sign because she really likes me, and relationships are always better when the woman is more into the man than vice-versa. Women need someone to look up to.

5. Doesn’t have many actual skills. This is related to #3. So few girls know how to cook or clean or just manage life. It’s like, “What do I need you for?” Sex is cheap and girls seem not to have figured this out. If she only brings sex to a relationship then the relationship is probably not going to last, because all the other things in life still need doing. I have talked to Bike Girl about this a little bit, but she thinks that love conquers all. No, honey, it doesn’t. Infatuation makes people think that in the thrill of a new relationship, but the real world works differently.

Neutral:

1. As usual, after a couple months the girl I thought was OMG so hot is still pretty but no longer captivating. I wish it weren’t true but it is.

2. She is open to the idea of an MFF threesome.

3. She has close friends and confidants, whereas a lot of girls are totally lonely or have “friends” who aren’t really friends.

4. She actually wants more sex than me on average, and having so much with her drains me enough to prevent me from pursing other leads. Sounds like a plus, but whenever a guy stops approaching the well dries up. My well stays somewhat full due to kink and non-monogamy, but the highest-caliber girls don’t usually come from there.

I don’t know how other guys deal with career, primary partner, kids, and gym. I’m efficient but it feels like something’s gotta give among those four.

As always I don’t know how to evaluate many things.

“The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures”

I was listening to and nominally participating in an inane female conversation about social media, and two women were talking about Instagram and the unwritten “rules” about posting to Instagram. At one point I just interjected and said, “The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures.”

They agreed that I “got it.” One asked me if I have Instagram, and I truthfully said that I have an account but don’t use it. For some reason a lot of chicks like to tell me about the pictures of whatever thing they did and will then sign me up to follow them on Instagram. Fine with me, but I don’t interact or look at it.

I told them that if they want to find higher-quality guys, they should spend less time on social media and more time in the real world. One agreed and one argued that social media was “fun” and “important.” There was nothing to argue again because the point is so inane.

For guys, liking a woman’s social media posts is just a demonstration of lower value. Women know this yet many guys do it anyway. Women who post pictures of themselves in pretty addresses or bikinis get endless waves of validation and attention, but deep inside the women themselves know that the attention is meaningless.

Online and off, less is often more. I do use some Facebook and WhatsApp, but for me the main purpose is to focus on meeting up. Any woman you can’t get on a date might as well be invisible to you.

Social media is deceptive because it can make a guy think he’s making progress when in actuality he is either not making progress or is actively moving himself back. Generic likes and “so hot” comments just convey thirst.

I did tell those two girls that my most interesting social media is anonymous and NSFW, which is true and intrigued them, but I refused to give specifics. Holding back is sometimes better than spewing out.

I have a bunch of other stories to write, including one about Bike Girl’s first foursome, with a couple who I’ve known for a while from the sex-club scene. I also have a half-written post about swinging and non-monogamy for RP guys.

This is a continuation of my points in “Men, game, and social media strategies.” In my view, guys are well-served by minimal interactions on social media.

Daygame failures in Nashville [FR]

In Nashville I got inspired by Days of Game and others, so I decided to do some day and early nightgame. I’ll spoil the story and say I didn’t get laid or even any near misses, but I did have a couple amusing interactions.

Unless I’m missing something there are two major sections for game in Nashville: the very busy section around Broadway, between 1st and 5th or so, and, probably, some areas near Vanderbilt University, although I didn’t see much walking.

Some Nashville impression: there are lots of tragic fatties. So many times I saw girls or packs of girls who looked good from a distance, only to get closer and think they might be a little heavy, only to get closer still and find they’re nowhere near the acceptable quality line for me. My overall approach rate was low. Online dating might be a nightmare here due to the number of bovine girls.

To be sure I did see some stunners and, oddly, got more traction with two stunners than some less attractive ones I opened anyway. For guys, it’s useful to remember that the challenge a girl presents does not always increase monotonically with hotness. In my life some incredibly stunners have been very easy and pleasant to get into bed and some marginal girls have been brutally hard or impossible.

One of the hotter girls I saw, I saw near Vanderbilt while I was on an errand: she was wearing yoga pants and a tank top, and she made strong eye contact. The opener was something about her style and then a tease about whether she was really an athletic girl or only a poseur. A common one for me and she hooked. She was on her way somewhere and I took a number. A solid eight, if you like lean girls curved in the right places like I do. Pretty close to the Playboy figure.

She was only 20 so we met for tea later, as I figured I’d bounce to the hotel roof with bubbly if it went well. First ten minutes were fine until I began sexual spiking, which she did not like. No, that’s not enough: SHE DID NOT LIKE GOING SEXUAL. I ignored that and kept going. A little light touching on her hands and wrists made her visibly recoil. I asked why she recoiled and she said she “didn’t like being touched.”

I asked the obvious, “Why not?” She said, she “just didn’t,” so I knew it was over, but why not see the cards? I said that must make dating hard and she said she wasn’t interested in dating. I said that we wouldn’t get along if she didn’t like dating either. After that I told her she should probably go. That seemed to surprise her. All this was delivered in a gentle, slightly curious manner; if you deliver it harshly you will hurt the girl for no reason (and yourself).

Next day she added me on Facebook. I know, know, KNOW that girls are capricious and irrational, but this story is a good reminder. It’s also still a (pointless) ego boost getting hot 20-year-old girls out, even weirdos like this one.

Another girl appeared in the early evening, walking along a short strip near some bars. She wore a red shirt that plunged down almost to her belly button. I opened by telling her that I thought she was cute and that her style is unusual in Nashville (which is true). She did a full stop and we talked about NYC versus Nashville, then I gave a false time constraint and invited her in to one of the bars right next to us. I gave her a high eight from a distance, still a high seven to low eight up close.

Bar was way too loud and we basically talked in each other’s ears for for about for thirty minutes. She was very responsive to touch on her arms and lower back. Good signs. We kissed lightly. But she had to meet friends and I got her number and said we ought to meet later. I didn’t want to tag along. We traded numbers and she left. Responded to my opening texts, then I sent her another text a couple hours later inviting her out. She replied ambiguously and then the line went dead. I had to stop texting to avoid being needy.

Next day I tried a Torero recovery text and she apologized but said she was busy that night, the last I was in town, and suggested the next night. Too bad. Maybe next time. She may have been a time waster or attention sink, or logistics may have been in the way, or other guys might have lured her away with their birdsong. It’s usually impossible to separate this kind of time-waster from a keen girl until it’s time to bounce home or hit the bed.

This is a weird one for me: I met a mother-daughter duo downtown near all the honkytonks and invited them into a bar. I was trying to figure out how to isolate the daughter, but half an hour after we first walked in the daughter left to use the bathroom and the mother tried to stick her tongue down my throat. I backed off. Role reversal. The daughter got back and looked completely disgusted. The mom asked for a few minutes, so I wandered away. No other good targets in the bar, so I tried chatting with a mixed group of guys and girls about Nashville vs other cities.

Mom came back to get me and daughter looked more unhappy than ever. I asked the mom if I could have a couple minutes alone with daughter and the daughter made a sour face and said no, like a child. I got out. I get the feeling this isn’t the first time that particular interaction has gone down.

Waiting for an uber in the afternoon, a guy and two girls stopped near me, young undergrads. The prettier girl was very pretty and turning around because she didn’t want to go with the other two and was planning to turn around. I was waiting so close that I heard their conversation. I made strong eye contact with the pretty one and said that she should hop in my uber to go back. Extremely strong eye contact made her say almost nothing. Her friends began telling her not to go, but she barely looked at them. I began my speech about the door to adventure opening, using eye mesmer the whole way. I felt the bubble and like her friends were outside it, and I barely even looked at them. The guy looked and sounded like he was 14. The car pulled up and she was still standing there, swaying a little.

I got in, and she still didn’t move. The last thing I said was, “The door to adventure is closing.” But she didn’t get in. This is lame to read about but felt very powerful in the moment. Another opportunity seen in the moment and seized, though it came to nothing. Bike Girl was similar, but she came to fruition.

Overall it was a pretty weak showing, even for someone like me who does not have top-notch daygame, and I got a lot of boring blowouts. Some younger girls said they were married. Whenever possible it’s a good idea to assume the responsibility of failure and ask what can be learned. Sometimes the situation is genuinely beyond control. In Nashville, I didn’t find a good consistent street for daygame or early night game, even though there must be one or more. If I’d been willing to stay out till closing time I might’ve succeeded but most nights I want to head in by midnight if nothing is happening.

My vibe is pretty different than most guys in Nashville, which I think helps with the higher-end girls. Guys tend toward country-pickup-truck types (if you’re not familiar with the United States you may never have seen this type of guy, as I think it’s pretty peculiar to the States) or sports-bro types. I tend towards GQ-Don-Draper-exec style, though usually without the suits. It would take a lot more effort to know for sure whether my vibe would really work in Nashville or no, but I did feel pretty conspicuous, in a good way, on the streets.

I wish I’d brought Bike Girl with and taken her to the Nashville swingers club Menages, but I couldn’t have known that before I went. There were also many bachelorette parties on the streets, most of them filled with fatties, and I saw no way for a solo guy to break into those. Not early, certainly. Maybe late when all the women are drunk.

The restaurants in Nashville are filled with fried chicken, steak, sandwiches, and simple carbs. No wonder there are so many fatties. The food is not good for anyone doing zero sugar, or just low carb. Food and lifting discipline are hard on the road and made harder by the food choices around.