The more game I’ve needed the worse the relationship has been

I was reading “Honest observations after eight years in the game” and got to thinking: the more game I’ve needed to get a particular girl, or the more I’ve had to run game on her, the worse the relationship has been. The ones who are bitchy, constantly testing, and most difficult can be good in bed but the relationships themselves are never the best. Those women are only good as friends with benefits, and even then the “friends” part stretches the definition of the word.

The ones who just wanted me and the sex and let everything lead into that have been the most pleasant to deal with and over time the best in bed. Over time this has become my own test: How much game did I need to get this woman? The more game, the more likely I am to jettison her or keep her in a distant rotation.

It’s amazing to me that many women think playing hard to get and being unpleasant to be around is somehow a way to get and keep a man. That’s a good way to get some casual sex and a terrible way to get a relationship. Over time, the guys who persist most will be the ones with no other options. Guys with options will find a woman who’s more pleasant to be around, and pleasant to be around starts with the very first interaction.

Bike Girl was pleasant when I met her, pleasant in texting, pleasant on the first date, and has been pleasant since. So was the gorgeous 19-year-old I met a couple years ago and dated for almost two. Most of the relationships I’ve ended prematurely ended because the girl was the opposite. The more “game,” I’ve needed, the more I realized (usually sooner) that the girl couldn’t and shouldn’t be anything more than an FWB. The more I’ve felt “tested,” the more I’ve known the girl is no good or no good for me. Next!

No wonder relationships in the U.S. are fucked.

This isn’t an “actionable” post and doesn’t matter much for guys who want to hit ‘n’ run. But guys who are still being chosen, rather than the choosers, should know that your whole world changes when you do more choosing. You learn a lot quickly.

 

My pet theory: people get discontent with what they have

I have a pet theory: People who are in very long-term relationships get bored of their partner and eventually crave something new, different, or novel. You may read that sentence and go, “Oh yeah, then I should be a player forever!”

The other part of the pet theory is that people who are always having short-term relationships and experiences eventually feel anomie, loneliness, existential meaninglessness, and a longing for deeper connection to another human being. Cue me: “Ramblings about a change in perspective towards game and life.”

I don’t see a way of resolving that tension. The long-term players I read (Krauser, Tom Torero, etc.) make me wonder if they really are going to be picking up girls forever—in another decade, are they still going to be stopping a girl to say that she looks like a greyhound, or like she just got out of yoga but didn’t have time to change?

Maybe the answer is yes. This is not going to be one of those dumb posts about how PUAs are eventually going to recant and shack up. I’ve shacked up (too young, granted) and I’ve been on the market for a long time and neither worked for me. Looking at the world around me, I see most couples eventually tiring of each other and descending into squabbling, and I see most singles tiring of the dating grind and the Groundhog Day effect of casual sex.

I begin to think that humans are by our nature discontent, and there is no final answer.

But I don’t know how a person lays out a life or plans well for the future that way.

For a long time I’ve been a sex-positive, sex-is-the-center-of-life person. Now I’m reading the Mark Regnerus book Cheap Sex, first referenced here, and he lays out many of the downsides of the sex-for-all, all-the-time culture that I believe in. He is wrong or at least misguided about some things, like the way he underemphasizes the extent to which modern sex and dating is driven by women’s desires to date and marry “up.” Women who consciously stop playing that game find a guy and get married. Women who feel the need to always move up, they often don’t.

But his chapter on “The Genital Life” makes me think. Maybe there is something hollow about what I’ve been doing. Maybe like everything, done long enough, it gets boring eventually. I don’t know. But I do know I’ve been at it for a long time. But if I really changed and “settled down” (I hate that phrase), I think I’d eventually get bored again.

Like I said in my ramble, I think it’s telling that almost all the online PUAs who write books and keep blogs had a substandard high school, college, and early 20s experience. Just like Neil Strauss.

Maybe guys do eventually work it out of their system.

To be sure, I’m not saying that I think tagging new chicks is bad. I still get that thrill. But afterwards, now, I more often get the, “Is that it?” feeling. And it is more of a feeling than a verbal question. The answer might be “yes,” and I have to focus on the positive. Most guys never achieve game skills or abundance, I think. So even getting to that point is amazing and I’m blessed for it.

The question is… what’s next? What then?

Maybe I know too much for long-term relationships. Knowledge can poison. For most guys, the answer is likely children. But I’ve already done that. And I am trying to spend more time with them (right as they want to spend less time with parents…)

Game starts with concrete skills and ends with philosophy.

Frame control technique: “You only get to ask one question, then I get a question!”

I met a couple of bike girl‘s friends tonight and one in particular kept shit testing me, hard (which is weird because bike girl does almost no shit testing, and I like that, a lot, about her). I used a favorite technique for redirecting conversation: when a bunch of rapid fire questions come in a row, announce, “You get a question, then I get a question.” Kind of like the trade-off in truth or date.

Delivered correctly, this will often redirect the conversation, and the shit test will be forgotten. Tonight, one of the friends wanted to know my age, and I gave some variant of my favorite shit answer (“old enough to know better but young enough not to care”). This, along with some other stuff, got her riled, but I actually did pretty well by treating her like a puppy. When she called me condescending I just shrugged, nodded, and smiled a little. At some point she gave me some bullshit again and I pulled another favorite line that I’ve been tinkering with over the past couple years, “What can I say? I’m used to giving people orders.”

It leads either to a subject change or a great set of follow-ups. It’s also somewhat true in my case. I wish I hadn’t fallen for so many shit tests in high school and college, but back then no one openly discussed them and there was no “game” like there is now.

I see that Tom Torero has a podcast about shit tests as well. Probably a good listen for anyone with shit tests as a sticking point. I’m not that good at them most of the time, but I am very good at being non-reactive (a side effect of not being good at neutrality when I was younger and would rise to the bait).

Don’t believe everything you’re told:

The Queen of Oversharing: The personal essay may be over—but Joyce Maynard isn’t,”

Her first husband and her three children are Snowy to her Tintin: reliable sidekicks yoked to the central character for the length of the run. The husband spent the duration of her 1980s syndicated column, “Domestic Affairs,” as the ideal partner; in the ’90s (after the divorce) he was revealed in subsequent essays and books as a cruel bastard who pressured her to get an abortion and filed a motion to have her declared an unfit mother. Lately, he has emerged as the co-victim of a bad union, as she has confessed that she actually had a long affair with his close friend.

Everyone has a narrative. Most people’s narratives leave some shit out. Whenever someone tells you some story, think about the dark matter of that story. This goes doubly for anything relating to abuse or “abuse,” which are both trendy these days.

For some reason, at least half a dozen women have told me on first dates or near first dates about abuse or “abuse,” and with every one of them I did the same thing: no more dates, no more escalation. Don’t need that shit. If she’s sharing it inappropriately early, run.

Some guys are assholes. Some women are too. But be pretty cagey about anyone who paints their ex as a total demon. If the ex is a demon, why did she (or sometimes he) date him in the first place? There’s some shit there that’s not being revealed.

Maynard also reiterates a common theme you’ve heard before: don’t get married, cause you never know whether she’s going to have a long affair with someone. I wonder if that guy’s kids are even his.

I’m starting to think that women are more RP than men, to guys who are paying attention. Which most of us aren’t.

“Why Happy People Cheat:” Hahahaha

Why Happy People Cheat” is the Red Pill wrapped in Blue Pill paper:

“Most descriptions of troubled marriages don’t seem to fit my situation,” Priya insists. “Colin and I have a wonderful relationship. Great kids, no financial stresses, careers we love, great friends. He is a phenom at work, fucking handsome, attentive lover, fit, and generous to everyone, including my parents. My life is good.” Yet Priya is having an affair. “Not someone I would ever date—ever, ever, ever. He drives a truck and has tattoos. It’s so clichéd, it pains me to say it out loud. It could ruin everything I’ve built.”

Hahahaha.

Be the buff guy with the tattoos, not the married guy. I wonder if that guy was smart enough to DNA test his kids. Or his “kids.”

Don’t get married.

Hit the gym.

Sociologist Mark Regnerus: ‘Cheap sex’ is making men give up on marriage

“Cheap sex is making men give up on marriage” is the article, and it should not surprise most guys reading here who have followed the community over the last couple years. His book is Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy.

In today’s dating market men can specialize in being the guy girls want to fuck or the guy they think they should want to marry. Or more realistically neither, but let’s ignore that for now. It is of course possible to do both but trade offs exist in the real world and most guys are better off specializing in being the fuck boy.

While women bemoan the lack “eligible” men, they actually mean that they want a guy who can fuck all the girls he wants but for some reason her magical pussy makes him monogamous to her and makes him want to transfer lots of financial and other resources to her, with basically nothing in return. Guys are waking up to how terrible a deal this is. If one woman walks, she’ll be replaced by another. Guys who know they can get laid live a very different life from guys who can’t.

Stated like that the situation obviously makes no sense.

The only way to judge who and what women actually want is to look at who they fuck. Smart guys hit the gym, up their style, and learn game. Dumb guys bemoan their “fate.”

My last bunch of relationships ended after three to twenty-four months when the woman wanted a timeline for cohabitation or eventually marriage, and I refused. Very few women will be long-term fuck buddies or even girlfriends without a timeline for cohabitation. That can yield a Groundhog-day quality to relationships, but in my experience that is much better than the situation I found myself in when I lived with the woman who is now my ex and the mother of two kids. While I didn’t marry her (a smart move) I did make a lot of other errors that are obvious in retrospect.

In the article, the author doesn’t even attempt to ask himself what legal structures might make men wary of marriage:

This ratio, he says, keeps ultimate relationship power in the hands of men. “To plenty of women, it appears that men have a fear of commitment. But men, on average, are not afraid of commitment,” Regnerus writes.

“The story is that men are in the driver’s seat in the marriage market and are optimally positioned to navigate it in a way that privileges their (sexual) interests and preferences. It need not even be conscious behavior on their part.”

Or maybe men have learned from their fathers and uncles and friends that any time a woman wants to, she can divorce him and take half his assets. If they have kids she can use the violence of the state to compel him to disgorge money to her for 18 – 24 years. So why would any man sign up for that shit? Answer: he won’t.