When the model goes totally out the window

I love this story from Tom Torero. Sometimes things go bizarrely for reasons mostly outside your control. In this case, he snagged a definite “yes girl” almost by accident. Some of the most confusing times can occur when there are no obstacles. I’m trying to think of a story similar to his, but none have that combination of fast sex with a total stranger met on public transport. A couple times I’ve slept with friends of women I’ve been sleeping with, but those situations were more social proof and seeing the moment than game.

“I fired a girl | red flags, female encroachment”

I fired a girl | red flags, female encroachment” is good. This is how pretty much all my relationships have ended since I broke up with the woman who I lived with and who I had two kids with:

Usually the girl would try to raise the stakes — to encroach on my territory, you might say. A mix of being less agreeable, less sexual, and more demanding. That is a fucking retarded plan for a girl to roll-out, but I’ve seen it over and over.

I see it over and over again, in my own relationships and my friends’s relationships. After living with a woman and painfully breaking up with her in my 20s (a story I might tell here) I vowed that I was never going to live with a woman again. So pretty much every relationship I’ve had dies when the woman wants to move in with me, or find a timeline for moving in.

Only two of them were really hard to let go. One was a younger girl I met in a coffeeshop and who I dated for almost two years, starting when she was 19. Not only had I vowed never to move in with a woman again, but she was way too young for that to work. Only experience can or will teach her that. Last I heard she’s in a relationship with a guy who is modestly older than her, instead of way too old for her.

The other was with a woman who wasn’t exactly a nymphomaniac, but she’d either been told or figured out that keeping a man’s balls empty is a good way of keeping a man. While she loved sex, I’m not sure she loved it more than the average girl. She also loved giving head and that did set her apart from the average girl. She would give it at every opportunity. Morning. Nights. Afternoons. I could barely keep up with her demands in that department. They never dropped off. When she was on her period, she wanted to make sure I was okay. I’ve never seen one like her before. We only broke it off because I wouldn’t marry or cohabitate. It took me a long time to get out of that script. Now that I’m out I’m likely never going back. If not never, then not for many years. I wonder what I’ll be like at age 60. By then maybe I will have mellowed enough.

She married the guy after me. No surprise. I don’t talk to her anymore but I bet he’s as happy as he can be in a marriage. When I hear women complain about guys I think about her. She didn’t complain. She wasn’t an expert cook but she would cook. And that sex. Those lips. The willingness. Her thrills. I doubt she’s been cheated on. Who would have the time or energy? If my ex (who I had the kids with) had been like her, we’d probably still be together and you wouldn’t be reading this. She, the highly sexed girl, wasn’t perfect (no one is, including me), but she had incredible fundamentals.

 

“Salt Dating 101: How To Sleep With Sugar Babies Without Actually Paying Them”

This is pretty accurate, although I think its success will vary by area. You should also recognize its basic outlines because I wrote a similar post (that girl I mentioned? I dropped her as she went more pro). But success will also vary by vibe and by your masculine energy. If your masculine energy and presence are low, you probably aren’t going to “salt date.”

I also don’t think this situation is going to last forever. As more guys figure out that pretending to be rich can work, girls will get wise to it. Kind of like Tinder. I heard about Tinder before it hit pop culture. For the first two years it was a gold mine. Today it’s a pile of shit. Market conditions change as people learn about the conditions and adjust their behaviors.

Evolutionary biology underpins game

Evolutionary biology underpins game. I started reading evolutionary biology even before Neil Strauss wrote The Game (and in The Game he cites David Buss and other evolutionary biology writers). I credit evolutionary biology with giving me some game awareness from an earlier-than-average age. The Red QueenThe Evolution of Desire… even Donald Symons (old-school shoutout), once I saw how differing incentives shaped average behavior for men and for women.

So. Another Riv post, this one about a date that either went wrong or never went right.

some people will say, “if she went on a date with you, the bang was yours to lose, and so you fucked up” — and i recognize that there is some truth to that.

Some people will say that and they are wrong. Girls go on dates for all kinds of reasons and are prone to change their minds for any reason or no reason. The more you experience women, the more you see what Good Looking Loser calls “sexual availability.” You may call it something else. Point of his post is:

The outcome of your interaction is already determined, in a lot of cases.

Yes. In most cases. All a guy can do is try to improve something in his game and then accept that he will always have losses.

Look at it from a biological perspective. Men always want sex because successful sex may lead to a child. Women don’t always want to have sex because children have substantial costs and it takes time to evaluate the quality of a guy. Waiting is easy and if she rejects one guy for some capricious reason, another will come along next week. Understand how men and women evolved to not have completely identical goals and preferences and suddenly female behavior makes more sense. Or “sense,”  ha.

If we had a school system worth a damn everyone would be exposed to micro economics and evolutionary biology early. Take the concepts of supply-demand, shortages, and evolutionary biology and apply them to sex, culture, and dating, and suddenly lots of things make sense.

Most guys don’t know shit about anything because they don’t read enough. Harsh but true. Get off the Internet and into the library when you’re not opening. The more a guy interacts with women, the more apparent their capriciousness and randomness becomes. Stoic philosophy was developed by guys. Not a coincidence. Stoics acknowledge that any given person can only control himself.

Since most women don’t even understand their own internal desires or states, the likelihood of there being an intelligible reason for her rejection of a guy who’s generally done things right is low. And for her that’s okay. She can follow her feelings. Someone else will pitch her tomorrow. That’s why guys pitch a lot. She can reject five guys for random reasons, then the sixth can knock her up and BOOM! genes in the next generation.

The major exception to this principle is a guy who is stratospherically valuable. If the king wants it he gets it. In modern terms, famous actors, musicians, etc. will automatically sway a “no” girl to a “yes” girl. Not 100% of the time, but a lot more than I will or you will.

For normal guys, social proof can have a similar function. What might turn a “no” or “maybe” girl into a fast “yes” girl is seeing another girl get that man. Suddenly, he’s scarce. Scarce goods and services carry high prices. For this reason, it is also good to know the male-female ratios where you live, go to school, or work. Most non-engineering universities are now predominantly female (see the preceding link for details). San Francisco and Seattle are predominantly male. Philadelphia and New York City are predominantly female. Put a normal guy in an environment with fewer men and more women, and he will do better on average than the reverse.

Social proof won’t always work, but it can. There are girls who are mature or internally congruent enough to not let other women’s valuations sway their own. But those girls… aren’t so common.

Women also have emotional modules that protect them from cads. Women simultaneously want a guy who other women want but who won’t abandon them once they’re pregnant. That’s a tricky line and explains why female behavior often looks erratic to guys, who just want more sex with more hotties. Chicks are random for many reasons, including the way their preferences change over the course of their mensural  cycles and the way they want a hot, cool guy but also want a guy who will invest in their offspring… ideally both will come in one man, but often they won’t, so chicks oscillate among desires.

The desire for “hot guy” but also “investment guy” explains why women will produce both “shit tests” and “comfort tests.” Guys who are new to game and bad with women have never experienced “comfort tests,” so when they start the game they become too much of a jerk and scorch leads that could pan out with a little less asshole and a little more deftness. Guys who present as players will be rejected by some chicks who are genuinely looking for commitment.

Women have multiple conflicting internal desires, and those conflicts manifest themselves in ways that seem strange to guys. Once a guy beings to understand the underlying mechanisms, he can start to accept the situation. He can also realize that his algorithm is simple (f**king more hot chicks is always better) while hers is complex.

I’m rolling off topic here, but the important point is that women’s decisions are often arbitrary and beyond a certain point trying to analyze why they make a given decision becomes pointless. The woman herself likely doesn’t know. She’s reacting to pure feeling (like you, men, are when you see a hot woman and get aroused because the woman is signaling that she’s healthy and can bear healthy children).

If you get zero traction with a hundred women something is probably wrong. If you get total traction with ten women in a row you’re not trying hard enough. Somewhere between those poles lies game. Game is the art of imperfect information.

I also think about whether guys doing game are more likely to meet incoherent and incongruent girls. Girls who really know that they want a guy and a family stat don’t put up with operator “game” guys. Those girls are also likely to be over age 25 in modern Western countries. They look for provider guys (not automatically a negative thing IMO, just a description) and if they  know what they’re about they get one by filtering out hot casual sex guys.

Chicks who have a coherent plan that they genuinely want, and then execute it, will try to filter players. They are willing to overlook some features (often looks, presence, social dominance, that kind of thing) in order to achieve their real goal of children and house. Those girls are out there but game guys don’t get exposed much to them for obvious reasons.

Lots of girls think they want this because society tells them to want it, but many don’t actually want it, so they come off as incoherent and incongruent. Or they want it, but not when they meet a hot guy who they like. They say “I want a nice guy to settle down with” and then have sex with a random two days later. Guys notice and think, “Oh, girls are dumb. Girls are stupid.”

Not exactly. They experience internal conflict and desire that shifts from day to day and sometimes even hour by hour. Guys who want casual sex are looking for girls who have shifted into an openness for casual sex, even though their superficial long-term plan might be “marriage with a sweet guy.” Guys want to be that two-days-later guy.

Girls who really like sex and are sex positive (also not a big group) aren’t as much into “game” or games per se. Their beliefs (sex is fun and we should have more of it) are congruent with their actions. These are also pretty rare. Most don’t openly advertise their beliefs because they’ll be besieged by dudes and ostracized by chicks. Chicks know that the biggest threat to boyfriend or husband investment is another chick, so chicks will socially attack other chicks who seem “promiscuous,” negative term that could also mean “sex-positive.” The male social world is a bit simpler than the female social world, and a lot of guys don’t appreciate this.

Most girls are neither looking for purely providers nor being overly sex positive. Their stated beliefs (“I want a ‘good’ guy”) often don’t match their actions (“He’s hot and I’m a little drunk, soooooooo YOLO!”), so guys think they look flakey, wishy-washy, uncertain, and incoherent. All that is really an outcome of not having interrogated their inner, evolved belief structure or what they want out of life and men.

Plus, how you as a man present yourself will affect how girls present to you. I’ve written about this before. I do the sex-positive, zero-judgement thing. I try to bring girls to sex clubs and BDSM events. That loses me some girls but gains me an entire universe of next-level game that I haven’t read about anywhere online among pickup or manosphere guys.

All these curious features in female psychology emerge from evolutionary biology and the fact that men can have an almost unlimited number of babies, given a sufficient number of attractive fertile women (think Genghis Khan, sultans, emperors, etc.). Women can have a finite number of babies, usually under 10, and are therefore very interested in making sure that their babies are fathered by the right guy. Female mammals have been choosy for many millions of years. We are not going to fully overcome that with a few decades of cultural propaganda, birth control, and effective contraception.

If you want an intelligent counter-point to what I have written above, consider Against Human Sexual Selection. It argues that in most human cultures for most of human history, most marriages, kidnapping, etc. did not include (much) female choice and was instead instigated by men and family. I think it understates female choice, but I don’t thin it’s 100% refutable.

The quitting economy

The quitting economy: When employees are treated as short-term assets, they reinvent themselves as marketable goods, always ready to quit” should remind you of “Company loyalty is dead. Switch jobs every 18 months to two years.” It’s not even employees who killed company loyalty: employers did.

Regardless of who killed it, it’s gone now and isn’t coming back. Structure your career appropriately. Whenever someone talks about the virtues of loyalty to a company, remember that they’re really trying to take money out of your pocket.

I can’t believe I have to post this

I can’t believe I have to post this, but here goes.

Riv had or has a problem because he has or had no good leads. In response I wrote:

You actually have two choices:

1. Buy it.

2. Cold open.

You need to do one or both of those. When you have a new girl you will stop caring about the old ones.

You can read a bunch of other pretty dumb comments at the top link. I’m not going to repeat them all here. Most of the comments are based on misreading, or pouring ideas into my suggestion that aren’t there.

To be clear, I do (of course) emotionally bond with women.

But I also realize that I can only control myself, not others. No matter how into the woman I am, I can’t control her. She will do what she wants. Heartbreak happens.

When it does, you can rage futilely against it. Or you can accept it as a part of life and even enjoy the pain, sort of like how you can enjoy the pain of deadlifting.

A growing experience with a new woman helps release the pain of the previous one. Action is usually better than rumination.

One of the only effective ways of making the old girl come back is to have a new one. Women want what they can’t have.

Kind of like… men.

Does this sound familiar? If you’ve read stoic philosophy it should.

Women also judge men based on social proof. When you have a new woman, that’s social proof. Social proof is why this ridiculous Snapchat gambit worked.

The best women go all the way for their men. She puts 100% into her man. If you are not getting 100%, the relationship is never going to be as good as one in which she willfully and joyously gives 100%. If she stops giving 100%, the relationship is over. The remaining question is, how long will it take the man to recognize it?

If she leaves you, that is… not 100%. So it’s time to buy it, cold open, online date, touch up old leads, do whatever you need to do.

I hope this is just manosphere porn

Dalrock tells a story that I hope is imaginary:

The other day a woman mentioned her frustration with smartphones to my wife.  The woman’s complaint was that her husband would play or read on his smartphone while she browses through stores.  My wife asked why that was bad, and the woman explained:

Because now he isn’t miserable.

I really, really hope the story is made up. But let’s assume it isn’t. Why would any man go shopping with a girlfriend or wife? When I’m with women, the only shopping that includes both of us together involves groceries, sex toys, or, rarely, lingerie. If women want to shop for anything else they can do so on their own time. I don’t stop at malls and don’t go to any generic clothing stores.

This really strikes me as an epidemic of guys who are unable to say “no” and mean it. Guys who can say “no” have entirely different lives than guys who can’t.

One of many reasons not to get married: being married inhibits your ability to say “no” and mean it. Marriage doesn’t remove that ability, and arguably married guys need to be able to say “no” even more than single ones, but it can inhibit it.

Exit is the only real tool modern guys have in relationships. Remove or make it more costly, and guys pay. A book I read recently got me thinking about how I should write a post on why exit is so important for modern guys.