Be aggressive and do better than most guys: “When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It”

When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It” is really about why most guys are pussies. Sorry, guys, but it’s true:

Women aren’t the only ones experiencing some cognitive dissonance between their animalistic urges and the social conventions of dating. “More and more men are finding it difficult to be as direct, when it comes to dating and sex, as previous generations of men maybe once were,” says Chiara Atik, author of Modern Dating: A Field Guide. We all get that the rules of traditional courtship — in which men make every single advance and women demur or acquiesce — are dead, but we haven’t replaced them with a new standard operating procedure. “Everyone’s being kind of wishy-washy,” Atik says. “Women want sex, but they don’t want to be seen as forward (or worse, desperate). Men want sex but are intimidated, unconfident, or don’t want to be seen as domineering. We’re not sure who should be the sexual instigators, and then no one really steps up to the plate.”

Now let me blunt. You, as a man, should not find “it difficult to be as direct.” You should come to find it easy. If you see a woman you like, go chat her up. If she’s receptive, ask her out. If you go out with her, you pick the venues and activities and lead her. If she seems happy or neutral on the date, you invite her back. You initiate foreplay and then sex, but in a controlled manner that sub-verbally checks in with her. You tell her what to do (while getting that feedback from her). Figure out what she likes. For some women it’s neck kisses. For some it’s their earlobes. Some (most) want to be spanked. Some want their nipples tortured. Some want their nipples caressed. Figuring out what she likes should be fun and should be directed by you. It is your job to direct those animal urges from beginning to end.

I like the game definition offered by the Good Looking Loser guy: game is looks, social freedom, style, and killer instinct. “Social freedom” and “killer instinct” are another way of saying: “Don’t be wishy-washy. Make things happen.” That’s it, whether you want to call it “game” or charisma or something else.

The rules of “traditional courtship” are not really dead. They have shifted somewhat and women are obviously much more willing to have sex now than they were in 1950 or 1900. But the man still needs to be the sexual instigator if he wants a good sex life (and he is not a celebrity or something… if he is, he does not need my advice).

Being the instigator also means you will be rejected. Probably a lot. Sorry. It hurts at first and maybe always hurts. I’ve been on a long cold streak lately, with probably 30 or 40 outright, real rejections in the last couple months. Maybe I am getting too old. Whatever it is, my choice is to give up or keep trying. I’ve probably been rejected more than the vast majority of guys. That doesn’t matter. I’ve also accomplished pretty much everything sexual I could want to accomplish. Some of that happened too soon (kids in my 20s, but at least I didn’t marry their mother / my ex). But it all happened and is still happening for me. The kinky shit I’d rather not share here has been a part of my life. But so has a lot of darkness. A lot of rejection. They come together. Very few guys get one without the other.

Chiara Atik is wrong about male-female dynamics. Men will likely always be the aggressors. If you get comfortable with being the aggressor in a calibrated way you will become attuned to indicators of interest women put out. If you do some of the obvious TRP things like lift, use your time productively, approach women, and improve your style, you will do better than most guys. You may still not do as well as the really rich, attractive, socially astute guys who have the advantages you don’t. So be it. Life isn’t fair. It never has been or will be. Life is about taking what you have and maximizing it. Many of the stories I have posted in this account are about that philosophy.

I think that women are right: most guys probably are intimidated by a woman who initiates (you shouldn’t be, if it happens, and it won’t very often). But there’s another factor, unstated by the article: most women are probably initiating with a guy several levels above their level of attractiveness. When I’ve been explicitly hit on by women, it’s almost always been by fatties or other women I wouldn’t deign to even fuck. Some of them probably went and told their friends that guys don’t like women who initiate. Ha.

Women who are as attractive as you or more attractive will very rarely explicitly hit on guys. They’ll implicitlyhit guys by smiling a lot, playing with their hair, maintaining intense eye contact, maintaining proximity, and other things like that, but they will not make the first move in the ways that I’ve made the first move. These days, I assume a woman from the past who initiates contact of any kind (text message, usually, but not always) is looking for sex, and I try to escalate appropriately if I want to.

To be clear, I think we would live in a better world if more women initiated and did so directly. But we’ll never see that world, for reasons based in biology, and consequently I don’t spend a lot of time thinking or worrying about what that world would be like, and I don’t spend time proselytizing for it.

As you move forward in your life journey you will also discover something that I wish I had discovered sooner, in that most women don’t have much to offer beyond sex. Once you realize that your whole life changes and you will become much pickier about who you date (you will also realize how badly women want to be fucking kinky and have great sex). Cause you will realize that women have almost as little control over who they find attractive as you do. You’ll learn to be that man, take the pain that comes with it (from rejection), and do better than most guys. Most women never get the kind of pain men do and consequently never develop into the person they could become.

If you are overly intimidated you are a pussy (it’s normal to feel some intimidation or trepidation, and probably only sociopaths never feel it). Stop being a pussy.

“Supply, Demand, and the Rise of the Man-Child:” Lessons

Supply, Demand, and the Rise of the Man-Child” describes how our society has changed from past to present. I don’t know when the inflection point happened but I would guess it to be in the 70s,

Consider a traditional society where all the men sell their labor and all the women keep house. You might think there’s only one market, but there are actually two: The labor market and the mating market. Men use their wages to supplement their masculine charms (if any) when they woo. In the labor market, the compensation that employers offer workers adjusts to balance the supply and demand for labor. In the mating market, the quality of life that men offer women adjusts to balance the supply and demand for women.*

Thrown down buddy,

Next question: What happens if we move this model into the modern world? Specifically, what happens in the mating market when women start earning money of their own? The obvious answer is just to flip the initial model around. If higher wages for men lead to higher quality of life for women, we’d expect higher wages for women to lead to higher quality of life for men. And what do most men see as a “higher quality of life”? Among other things: Less commitment, lower maturity, and lower expectations of financial support. In short, the chance to be a man-child.

Feminists wanted women to be able to earn their own money, which they can now do (and that is good, because we should remove structural barriers that prevent entire classes of people from competing for whatever it is they want). But that has consequences and in the aggregate changes the preferences of women

The upshot: Women’s demand for men isn’t just higher than ever; the composition of their demand has changed. Income and income potential still matter. But women now focus more on looks, machismo, coolness, and other “alpha” traits. Holding charisma constant, working harder just doesn’t attract women the way it used to. The result: Less desirable men often give up on women altogether – further tilting the effective male/female ratio in favor of the remaining men. And both kinds of men act like boys: The less desirable men have little to lose, and the more desirable men can get away with it.

So

When women have zero labor income, you’d expect them to care a lot about men’s income. They might even marry men they loathe to get a roof over their heads. As women’s income rises, however, women can afford to focus more on men’s non-pecuniary traits.

Caplan has already done the analysis. It is important to learn how you should adjust your own behavior based on prevailing conditions. Today, families and government make sure that women are fed, clothed, and housed to their satisfaction. The model Caplan offers has important implication for guys who are debating how to invest their limited time, money, energy, and other resources. All of us face trade-offs and our lives are defined by scarcity. What we do with scarce resources defines us.

Many guys have been told by their parents, society, or women that if they play by the “rules,” which are not readily articulated but add up to something like respect rules and authority, get a good education and then a good job and then everything will happen for you. But a lot of guys want first and foremost hot sex with hot women and many guys are surprised when the rules and guidelines they’re taught don’t lead to hot sex with hot women, while a lot of guys who naturally discard those rules and focus on sports and popularity get a lot of action.

Guys see scumbags getting laid all over and they start to realize that being an okay guy in an okay job isn’t that desirable to most women. WTF? What happened?

Guys who try to follow the old script get frustrated. Being a plodding, reliable, good earner isn’t enough most of the time. Women can earn money for themselves easily and even those who can’t still often prefer thrilling bad boys over stolid reliable dudes with average jobs, average bodies, and average personalities. Women will settle for those guys when they get older and/or can’t get commitment from guys who turn them on.

As a guy, you need to think about what you want. If you want more sex, you need to invest in body, wit, pleasure, and hedonism over job, conventional worker-based status, and stability. Choose a job that pays a little less for a little less work over a job that pays more but leaves you stunted, exhausted, and too tired to get laid (what are you working so hard for, anyway? Unless you make real big $$$$$ women won’t care anyway. Don’t you know that you can’t buy her love? I think that is even true.)

I will not tell you to discard any job or career focus. That is a mistake too and many scumbags come to ill ends or cannot keep going forever. But scumbags often get laid more and good guys who allocate their efforts poorly often do poorly with women. They end up working and being taxed to death so that single moms with poor impulse control and judgment can easily have children out of wedlock with random dudes. This leads to “Radicalizing the Romanceless” outcomes

Or to spell it out very carefully, Henry clearly has no trouble attracting partners. He’s been married five times and had multiple extra-marital affairs and pre-marital partners, many of whom were well aware of his past domestic violence convictions and knew exactly what they were getting into. Meanwhile, here I was, twenty-five years old, never been on a date in my life, every time I ask someone out I get laughed at, I’m constantly teased and mocked for being a virgin and a nerd whom no one could ever love, starting to develop a serious neurosis about it.

And here I was, tried my best never to be mean to anyone, pursued a productive career, worked hard to help all of my friends. I didn’t think I deserved to have the prettiest girl in school prostrate herself at my feet. But I did think I deserved to not be doing worse than Henry.

Be more like Henry and less like Dan. These guys can be called “man-children,” as Caplan does, or they can be called “guys who have responded to incentives and realized that incentives reward hedonism while punishing everyone else.” Women don’t care that much about income, especially for short-term relationships, so guys should maximize the shit women do care about (if they want to get laid). Watch what women do (and who they have sex with) versus what they say (and who they don’t have sex with). Action is all.

Be a fun-loving bad boy with lots of lovers and a good solid squat and good dancing skills over the stolid guy sitting in a cubicle somewhere.

Be kind from a position of strength, not a position of weakness

Don’t be a “nice” guy. But I’ve observed guys who can be kind while still being dominant, and I’ve observed guys who attempt to be kind but are really giant pussies. The differences are instructive.

Two guys I work with illustrate the point… one is respected, demanding, and yet kind, while the other guy runs around supplicating to women and superiors in a way that makes him seem like a dog. He’ll do anything for anyone and as a consequence no one respects his time or (limited) knowledge. He brags about the things he does for people and especially for women. Watching him brag to women he’d like to bang is pathetic. He’d be a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen if he had the balls to make a move. Fortunately he doesn’t and he’s at least harmless enough not to be a likely lawsuit target.

The other guy will not do anything for anyone any time. He isn’t miserly either. Instead he seems to carefully evaluate who he is actually friends with and what actually needs to be done. He can be astonishingly generous with his time if he thinks his investment is likely to be worthwhile, but he is also good at subtly but definitely shaming people who waste his time. One of my first bosses was like him, and I learned more from that boss (and from a particular client) than I have from anyone else, ever, including teachers, professors, and girlfriends.

I’m also thinking about kindness from a position of stregnth because in this essay VC Paul Graham states,

Good does not mean being a pushover. I would not want to face an angry Ronco. But if Ron’s angry at you, it’s because you did something wrong. Ron is so old school he’s Old Testament. He will smite you in his just wrath, but there’s no malice in it.

In almost every domain there are advantages to seeming good. It makes people trust you. But actually being good is an expensive way to seem good. To an amoral person it might seem to be overkill.

Being kind does not mean being a pussy. If you’re “kind” because you’re a pussy and can’t be assertive, no one will respect you and no one should respect you. Things are often valuable in proportion to their supply, and an infinite supply of a thing (like kindness) is of low value.

Don’t be “nice” to women, but be kind to ones who you’re already fucking and who deserve kindness. Don’t give anything, including attention, to women you’re not fucking and who have proven that you’re not going to fuck them. With women and clients pretty much everything is a binary: You’re fucking them or you’re not; they’re giving you money or they’re not. There is no in between. Women and clients like the liminal state. It took me way too long to learn this.

I hate to use the word “nice,” which is close to “kind,” because “nice” has been so polluted by the idea of the “nice guy” that it’s toxic.

Being kind can also mean being tactfully honest. If someone is deadlifting incorrectly it is kind to tell them, or to tell them how you know what you know. Being “nice” can often mean trying to assuage a person’s feelings, even when feelings of inadequacy or wrongness are justified. That being said, know when to speak and when to shut the fuck up. Often shutting the fuck up is best because morons can’t be helped and can’t take justified criticism.

The girl I’m breaking away from sees me as kind because her sister (who she is close to) does and because of something I did: I paid her tuition (which wasn’t much money) briefly. Now, I know, and you should know, that it’s a horrible idea to use money to supplicate to women. Let me emphasize that before commenters jump on me. I’d already been dating this girl for about a year. When we first started dating I don’t think she had any idea how much I make. I don’t waste money on the usual dumb shit guys waste money on (cars, apartments; unfortunately I do have a high burn rate that is not negotiable, however). Her work and school interfered with her ability to do the things I wanted her to do, so I just paid the tuition. She didn’t ask for it, directly or indirectly, which is an unusual mark of character these days. It isn’t a lot of money to me. You can argue that I was manipulated, but if so then I was party to the manipulation.

We’re on the path to breakup because she wants to move in with me and I’ve flat-out said no. I’ve been down that path and I’m not going down it again. I like this girl and I like the crazy shit I’ve encouraged her to do, but long-term she’s too young for me and I don’t want the kind of committment she thinks she wants but doesn’t actually want. Living together is the death of eroticism and I won’t do that again. Not anytime soon. Maybe someday.

Reminder, I originally wrote this post a year and a half ago, so some of the personal anecdotes don’t line up with my current life.

Practical tips from “Real World Divorce:” “Don’t slide into marriage”

Most of this post is not me! It’s from Real World Divorce, a book by Alexa Dankowski, Suzanne Goode, Philip Greenspun, Chaconne Martin-Berkowicz, and Tina Tonnu. The most important part is: “What’s her best advice to people hoping to have a lifelong marriage?” And the answer: “Don’t slide into marriage. When you move in or have a child together, do it on purpose,” which is one of the things I’ve done right in my life. I’ve never gotten married, and although I’ve been rammed by the so-called “family court” system, at least I haven’t gotten hit with the alimony too:

“Marriage used to be something you did first and then you built your life on that,” said Bryndl Hohmann-Marriott, an American sociologist currently teaching at University of Otago. “Now it is a capstone event that you do after you achieve other things. This results in people waiting until they are much older to have children. In New Zealand right now there are more women age 35-39 having children than women 20-25.”

In light of Professor Hohmann-Marriott’s observation, staying married is more important than it used to be because people are getting married at an age where they have fewer remaining years in which to recover from a mistake.

Hofmann-Marriott’s research, in collaboration with Professor Paul Amato at Penn State, shows that there are plenty of divorces in marriages that are just as happy as those that continue for decades. “Nothing distinguished the quality of marriage for those people who got divorced out of low-distress [nobody hitting anyone] marriages,” Professor Hohmann-Marriott told us, “so it has to be just a lack of personal commitment to the institution of marriage that explains some divorces.” What’s her best advice to people hoping to have a lifelong marriage? “Don’t slide into marriage. When you move in or have a child together, do it on purpose.”

Based on our interviews with attorneys, psychologists, and sociologists, as well as our review of the literature, a good starting point is to find people who have a cultural or religious commitment to marriage. They are the ones who will be willing to put in some work and effort when there are bumps in the road, rather than picking up the phone to call a litigator. At the other end of the spectrum are children of divorce who are themselves prone to becoming divorced. “If she didn’t have a close and loving relationship with her daddy,” we were told, “she isn’t going to be able to handle being a wife.” This perspective is echoed in the psychology literature. From Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues (Nielsen 2012): “Which mothers are the least likely to be gatekeepers? Generally speaking, mothers who keep the coparenting gate open share several things in common (Titelman, 2008; Cannon, 2008; Chiland, 1982; Krampe & Newton, 2006; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2010). First, these mothers had good relationships with their fathers while they were growing up. They value and appreciate fathers. They believe men and women should be equal parents. In contrast, the gatekeepers more often grew up in single-parent, divorced, or unhappily married families. Their relationships with their fathers were distant, troubled, or virtually nonexistent.” Most states’ divorce courts substantially reward gatekeeper mothers by awarding custody to the “historical primary caregiver” of a child. By definition a gatekeeper mother will have been the dominant parent during a marriage.

The research of Brinig and Allen shows that your chance of being sued for divorce rises with the amount of money that your spouse can get from you and with the probability that your spouse can win sole custody of the children. You can increase your chances of staying married, therefore, by marrying someone wealthier than yourself and by ensuring that you are not in a jurisdiction where the other spouse can easily get sole custody of the children (e.g., if you’re a man, try to settle in Arizona or Delaware).

Men don’t take women on “dinner” dates because women don’t want to go on them

In “Is ‘Netflix and Chill’ Actually a Good Date?” a writer named Beejoli Shah laments how “As a woman rapidly approaching 30, one of my largest personal failings is the fact that I’ve yet to go on a first date that involves eating food on purpose.” There’s a reason: Women don’t really like dinner dates, they find those dates awkward, and those dates don’t put them in the mood for sex. Smart guys get burned by one or two dinner dates, in which they pay and a woman says LJBF, and then guys learn to stop inviting women on those dates. As you can infer I speak from experience, as I made the dinner mistake once or twice after college.

Shah says

when it comes to being asked to sit down with a man for a meal that didn’t come in a paper bag from a place we happened to wander by, things haven’t quite metastasized

Shah could say that the only way she’s going on a date is if it involves dinner. But if she did, the guys she most wants to fuck would next her. The guys she least wants to fuck might take the bait. Either way will leave her unsatisfied.

My approach was straightforward: “Netflix and chill? I hear it’s all the cool teen rage these days,” which I hoped would offer me an out if I was immediately rejected. But judging by the reactions I received, no one else labored under the false delusions that I did. Men, for all their bravado of how easy it is to hookup these days, are overwhelmingly terrified by the idea of being propositioned simply for sex.

If I were offered “Netflix and chill” by someone attractive, I’d be excited. I’d want to meet them in public first, though.

Beejoli Shah claims that the men she meets aren’t interested hookups, but typing her name into Google Image reveals the most likely culprit. She is in fact not living in the same world as the women most men would like to hook up with.

No one should take the dating / romantic / hookup / game advice of a person seriously without at least seeing what they look like and knowing what their vibe is like. We all live in our own little bubbles and generalize from those bubbles.

Shah is having a very different experience than a pretty girl would, just like attractive guys have a different experience than ugly ones, which is why the initial advice newbies get always involves improving overall attractiveness and social skills. Karley Sciortino, the chick who writes slutever.com, is hot. Her experience dating is different because she’s hot. Always remember that when you people’s generalization on the Internet. If you don’t know their real-life hotness, vibe, coolness, and social circle, you don’t know shit about them. That includes me too.

 

“Why Happy Couples Cheat” from Esther Perel

Why even happy couples cheat” is a talk from Esther Perel, and I found it on the Sex Positive sub-Reddit. Her book Mating in Captivity should also be read closely, and Red Pill guys will get different things out of it. Although Mating in Captivity is superficially about how to maintain an erotic spark in a long-term relationship, a better reading is simpler and, for many men, harsher: All long-term relationships eventually curdle. Partners get bored with each other. Boredom is baked into the structure of relationships.

Expect cheating or misery or both from long-term relationships of sufficient duration. The only way out is not to engage in them (or, possibly, to engage in them at a much older age: 40+ at a bare minimum).

“Why Even Happy Couples Cheat” is an extension of Mating in Captivity: they cheat because cheating is a way of avoiding both the trade-offs of relationships (security, reliability) and being single (novelty, fun).

The important point, however, is not about the why “happy” couples cheat, but about what lessons you should incorporate into your own life:

  1. Don’t get married. This should be obvious.
  2. If someone tells you the baby is yours, make sure a DNA test proves it.
  3. Always have a contingency plan in any relationship. You’re only as good as your options.
  4. Don’t live together. This one is personally important because a couple weeks ago I told a woman I was dating that I didn’t want to live with a woman again. She was flabbergasted and wanted to know why. I explained that I think sex is better and relationships are better with distance. This strategy is less economical, but I’d rather live in a tiny studio on my own than a palatial two- or three-bedroom apartment with someone else. I also lived with a woman in my 20s and had two kids with her. I made the usual mistakes but I avoided two very important ones: I never married her and we never bought property together. Owning property in today’s day and age is slavery, not freedom. When our relationship ended, I could just leave the lease. I got reamed through the usual ways with child “support,” but I could still leave by letting the lease end and avoided giving up more money through alimony.

The latest woman and I broke up because the relationship “wasn’t going anywhere.” To me, it was its own reward, but that wasn’t true for her. I actually respect her for the solid breakup and no backsliding.

  1. Most people have no idea what they actually want. I’m not an exception to this. You probably aren’t either.

I think we’re undergoing a slow but real realignment of the fundamental structure of society. You can fight it or accept it. I used to fight and think I was different. I’m not.

Also, you have to realize that you’re going to cheat or be cheated on. The question is: Which?

There is no viable modern alternative to learning game.

“Clothes That Attract Women” (don’t exist in and of themselves)

Clothes That Attract Women” is a very good article, and it’s so good that I don’t have much to add (though I disagree somewhat about the attraction-to-comfort ratio the author implies is best). These paragraphs are especially good:

Status is the most important aspect of attraction and that can be on a broader scale – relationship to overall status in the world or in a tribe – or on a smaller scale – relationship to the woman you’re trying to attract.

Status is relative to women – they always want someone who’s higher status than they are

Status is tricky because it can be overall status or status within a particular subculture. In fact, the more isolated a particular subculture is, the less overall status within society at large matters.

It’s hard to truly learn game because there is no single “status” button that all women will like. So seeking That One Answer for That One Girl will usually fail, because there isn’t one answer.

This guy has also done some reading in the manosphere:

Meeting some minimum standards of status for men is the same thing as meeting minimum standards of beauty for women – which is typically why the happiest couples are paired fairly closely, with the man being higher in status than the woman.

A lot of what new guys are doing is learning how perceived status works at all and how to optimize what they have. A lot of experienced guys are learning how to boost their status and learn new skills and abilities, etc.

Clothes are one part of status. Social skills are another. Looks are another. Job / lifestyle / etc. is another. General skills (like cooking) can be another. I would argue that tolerance to social rejection is actually a big part of modern status (i.e. if you are willing to tolerate rejection by a lot of women you are also more likely to uncover women who actually like you). It took me about ten years to mostly get over my own fear of rejection and if I’d done so sooner I would’ve been much better off. I also ignored style for too long and paid for that.

I won’t say the guy who writes Masculine Style is right for everybody but thinking consciously about what you want to project as a guy is a good idea.