Don’t just be a consumer: A cyclist is a disaster for the economy

A disaster for the economy, and a win for the individual. The less you spend, the less you have to earn, and the less you are taxed, and the more you can make friends, interact with people, have sex, etc., instead of slaving away to pay for your spending habits. Earn to live instead of living to earn.

Most chicks don’t actually care much about your earnings or earnings potential. They want a guy who is functional, who makes them laugh, who has a decent body, who has good sex.  Most chicks don’t really care about the stuff Hollywood and the advertising edifice wants you to think they care about.

Go ahead. Be a disaster for the economy. Then watch how everyone around you wants to pull you back into the same bucket they’re scrambling around in. Spend less, live more.

One of the smartest things a guy can do is make a lot of money and spend a little. Almost no one does this. Why not?

Advertisements

What kind of guy is willing to appear in these articles?

Commenter Jake says,

I read the first link (as much of it as I could stomach) and I can only concur with Nash’s comment to the second link that poly in the US must be a “shitshow”. If consensual non-monogamy wants to become widespread, it needs to distance itself from these new-age-nooky nutjobs. Indigo wants to change the world by making others refer to her as “them” (but using the personal pronoun when talking about themself!), and screwing a few lame-ass soyboys who couldn’t even construct an IKEA bookshelf, let alone a coherent society. SMH

He’s mostly right. But: cool, masculine guys doing poly, don’t want to come out to the world as doing poly: they don’t want to humiliate themselves, humiliate the women they’re with, or disrupt their jobs and lives. Cool, masculine guys doing poly do it under the radar, in private conversations. They (we?) don’t want to be activists and don’t want to be associated by the kind of losers who appear in qz.com articles.

Most people want to associate with cooler and higher-status people, and no one willing to speak up for being poly is either. That’s because open and poly are too disruptive to the normal social order. So the only people who speak up are freaks, outliers, etc. Being publicly non-monogamous under your real name is a good way to lose a lot of real-world jobs, paying real-world rent.

There aren’t good, public spokespeople for this. Maybe there never will be. Cool women don’t want to be publicly non-monogamous because, if they do, they kill their ability to get one guy to commit to them, even as a primary partner. Coming out as publicly open is just saying, “Hit it and quit it.” Cool guys don’t want to perceived as a “cuck.” There is not much benefit to being super public and many costs. So who gets quoted? People with nothing to lose. Kooks and weirdos. Anyone remotely mainstream, stays away.

A few of my friends know a little about what I do. Almost none from the mainstream world know it all. They know a little bit, revealed in dribs and drabs. Most importantly, some of them see the fruits. If you’re a guy and you’re seen with a lot of cute or even hot chicks… your friends are going to be a lot more curious and interested in the non-mainstream parts of your life. Thta’s where something like “Ms. Slav at Thanksgiving” comes into play. Many of my friends and family have seen some evidence of the “not mainstream” parts of my life. They are curious about it because guys like me “shouldn’t” be banging some of the chicks I’ve banged. So they ask questions… I drop a thing here or there… and let them put it together.

You know how no normal chick has an Excel spreadsheet of every guy she’s dated? Few normal chicks will admit to the number of guys they’ve f**ked, all at once? Chicks are the master of trickle truth. Guys have an engineering mindset and want to explain everything. It can be useful to not explain everything all at once. It’s like my “rules for talking about RP concepts.” Guys shouldn’t use the jargon and, first and foremost, they themselves should be seen as cool and socially desirable (“The real knowledge comes not from what you say but how you live. Your life is the best example”). If you cannot do that first, no one wants to hear from you. No one wants to hear about wealth management and creation from some guy living paycheck-to-paycheck, on the verge of being fired from his job. They want to hear about it from Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.

Do first, speak later.

The best players I think I’ve ever met, in real life, haven’t identified as players. They don’t brag about their conquests (they don’t need to). They’re a little bit “Under the radar.” Women love being seduced… preferably by a guy they think is “naturally” seducing them. I know the concept of being a “natural” is ridiculous to anyone who is not one, but that’s chick logic for you.

Almost no hot chicks will want to be with a publicly “poly” guy. Their friends will make fun of them. But a lot more chicks than you’d think will go for this sort of thing if it’s pitched to them properly. A guy who gets women will understand the female need for covert sexual behavior. So that kind of guy will not want to be publicly poly.

Plus, a guy who comes out as poly is saying to every other guy, “Take a shot at my girl.” He’s saying, “My girl might be down to bend over for you.” As I have said many times, the bulk of the non-monogamy community is about guys trading value for value. When a guy announces he is poly, he is leaving a pile of sandwiches on the table, or a stack of cash… whoever happens by is going to try and grab that value. Smart guys (mostly) don’t want to offer value without getting it in return. But when you identify as poly in an ultra-public way, you are doing just that.

A publicly poly guy is almost all drawback and almost no gain. So what kind of guy will do it? Right. I don’t want to be publicly known as a player, although many of my friends may infer that about me. I don’t want to be publicly known as poly, although many of my friends may infer that about me, too. But there is a big important gap between “inference” and “public knowledge.”

Think about chicks on vacation. When they’re away from most friends and family, they’ll do things they won’t do at home, because those things are less likely to to affect their reputations. Similar thing here. Most guys with something to lose, don’t want to “come out” as poly.

What open relationships look like for a bottom, beta guy

When a Boyfriend Joins the Marriage” is from the New York Times so it is about a bottom, beta guy in an “open” marriage (read: his wife directs everything). It’s what the typical Red Pill guys think about open relationships, because they are imagining themselves in the bottom-guy position. I wrote “Open or poly relationships from the superior position or inferior position” to look at the issue from the top, alpha guy position. For top guy guys, open relationships can solve retention problems.

Top guys have different problems and don’t get married. Or, if they do get married and their wife wants an outside lover, they get divorced.

It’s also true that guys need to f**k their partners good. This story by a spinster, feminist writer is about her mom getting pregnant by a man the mom isn’t married to, and how the feminist writer learns her actual father’s identity. You may think this is another “All women are like that” story, but the mom isn’t getting f**ked by her husband, and the husband consents to the mom living in New York City while he works upstate.

It looks like the husband is at fault as much as or more than the mom. He’s not f**king her, so she finds someone else who will. Red Pill guys are overly eager to blame failed relationships on women. If you’re a guy and in a relationship with a woman, you need to f**k her regularly and thoroughly, or she will legitimately look for affection somewhere else. I mentioned an occasional lover of mine who has a stronger libido than her husband’s, and she is out looking for the sex she isn’t getting at home. Same thing with Peaches.

Reciprocity is a two-way street. I would not put up with a woman who won’t f**k me (barring legitimate medical problems). Women will not put up with a man not f**king them.

For every hot girl you see, chances are someone is f**king her. You might as well try to make you be the guy who is.

Female “friends:” the comprehensive statement.

Experienced guys can quit this post right now, as it’s about an obvious topic, so you don’t need to read it. But it comes up with such frequency online that I want one, comprehensive discussion of it.

A guy on Reddit says, “Anyone else find themselves increasingly distant from female ‘friends’?”

Those scare quotes around “friends” are good. The guy goes on, “Have you guys also found it more and more difficult to have girls around who are only friends? I struggle to see how other guys have girls around only as friends (unless they’re ugly).” He’s right. If a guy is around a girl he finds attractive, he should make a move on her within the first week of meeting. Maybe slightly longer in some situations, like if they go to school together and will be forced into a lot of proximity.

One of the commenters said something smart,

Almost none of those women you call “friends” are friends, in the sense that they are loyal, caring, trusted people in your life. They are people who know you, and may occasionally hang out with you.

But you would be less than nothing to them the instant you start to be a social drag on them. Most people are that way, so it is not necessarily a woman thing. It is just that, in my experience, very few men are any good at being a friend, and almost no women are.

As a young and stupid guy, I liked being “friends” with hot chicks because it meant I hadn’t yet been told, definitively, “no.” So I would grind away much of that initial attraction, if any existed at all, by hanging around the hot chick and not making a move. I achieved a paradoxical situation: I found it very easy to lay out girls I was a little bit attracted to, but very hard to get with chicks I was highly attracted to. With chicks I was a little attractive to, I would do almost perfect push-pull, hot-cold game, without knowing what I was doing. I genuinely didn’t care, so I’d run great game and generate loads of attraction. With girls I was attracted to, I’d simultaneously supplicate and avoid making a move.

With girls I was a little bit attracted to, I was an unconscious game expert, dribbling out just the right amount of attention to hook her. I wasn’t very concerned about how good I was in bed, which made me better in bed because I wasn’t worried and became focused on the moment.

With hot girls, girls I thought were truly “top tier” (a stupid thought), I would do the opposite. Timid, scared to make the move, worried about offending her, worried about being told “no.” It took me too long to realize that “no” is great. When I hear a firm “no,” I can give up on that girl and go find a girl to say “yes.” A firm “no” from a chick who means it is actually advantageous to guys.

To guys who are into smashing hot chicks, that is. To guys who are afraid of being rejected, “no” hurts. Most guys who are attracted to their female “friends” aren’t friends. They are too scared to make a move. They are better off making the move, getting to “no,” and then moving on.

I also hadn’t realized that, if I’m not f**king her, chances are that someone else is. Most chicks are being f**ked by someone. Hot chicks, medium chicks, even a lot of ugly chicks. If that hot chick is going to f**k someone, it might as well be me. I wish I had internalized that concept much younger.

When a guy propositions a girl for sex or starts kissing her and she says no, he doesn’t need to make a big deal about it. In fact, the less big a deal he makes, the better. She has been honest with him, and that is good. He doesn’t have to have a “friend breakup” talk. He just needs to direct his attention in more useful directions. Stop texting her, stop the unsolicited contacts. If you see her around, say hi and be cordial. Just don’t increase intimacy. Don’t do one-on-one hangouts. When you find a girl you can bang, you won’t remember why you had it for some girl you couldn’t.

Friendship also thrives on mutual interests. For a lot of guys, their female “friends” are girls they’d really like to fuck. Remove the horny from the situation, or realize that you’re not going to fuck her, and what’s the basis left for the friendship?

Right.

Every guy has 16 waking hours in the day. Time spent with female “friends” is usually not time spent getting laid or being in the gym or hitting on chicks or otherwise improving his life. Most guys who are “friends” with hot girls, are merely providing value to the girl while getting nothing in return. If the guy demands equal value in return, the girl hops to the next male “friend.” This kind of behavior becomes bad for women over time, as older women will eventually lose the beta males who provide this guy of free attention, but for women in their teens and well into their late 20s, using one kind of guy for attention and validation and another kind of guy for sex is common. Telling a 20-year-old-girl that she won’t be able to get away with this when she’s 34 is not going to work or mean anything to her.

In my last two years of school, I got in with a couple of party girls who’d get tons of party invites, and, although I wanted to f**k them, they were genuinely good sources of other leads. I’ve seen guys say, “But girls look at me differently when I’m out with a hot girl!” But do you bang those girls? Putting your dick inside a girl is the real test of anything related to the game, like profit and revenue are the true tests in business. In business, many people will say, “Oh that sounds like a cool product / service.” Do they pay for it? Then they mean it. Do they think someone else might pay for it? Then they do not. Talk is cheap.

Being “friends” with a hot girl seems to get most guys very few lays, from what I can tell. Yes, it might be easier to get warm intros, but most of the time a hot girl trying to pass off her male “friends” to other chicks is not going to succeed. Other girls are like, “If he’s so great, why aren’t you dating him?”

Exactly.

With those two girls towards the end of school, I wanted to bang them, but I didn’t, and I didn’t care that much. This was a rare circumstance where being the hot girl’s friend led to me getting laid. But by then, I’d also gotten used to meeting chicks and escalating. Meeting chicks at college parties is the easiest thing in the world. Eventually I started dating one, and that was around the time I really got over my fear of “no.”

Anyone who is old enough will remember ladder theory from the earlier days of the Internet. It’s kind of stupid but gets the basic idea that women by and large put men into two categories, one for potential sex and one for everything else, including “friendship.” Men mostly want women for sex. I have very some female friends, but they’re women I’ve either had sex with before or don’t want to have sex with. If a guy genuinely doesn’t want to have sex with a woman… and she brings genuine skills or insight to the table… then being friends is fine. Being friends because you don’t have the balls to try and f**k her is bullshit.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve observed some of the “friend zone” in reverse, in which women will maintain friendships with men in hopes of getting the man to invest in her fat self and especially her fatherless children. This isn’t a great look for the woman, and it reflects the way male sexual value frequently peaks later than female sexual value. It seems that younger guys have problems with female friends, and older guys learn 1. what true friendship is, 2. not to hide our dicks, and 3. if she isn’t f**king me, she probably isn’t important to me.

With all that context, however, it’s possible for high-value guys to have female friends, if they’re already getting all the sex they want from other sources. I have (had? can’t tell right now) a lover nicknamed Ms. Slav, and I would not be surprised if we shift towards a friend/mentor role. I like her in a lot of ways, but I have other lovers who are in some ways more compatible than she is. The age gap, combined with her interests and proclivities, mean that we might not be suitable as lovers. Like the girls I knew at the end of college, she is an interesting person AND I am getting about as much sex as I want, so we wouldn’t be “friends” with me quietly hoping she comes around to sex with me. We’ve already been lovers, and I’m not accepting a fake “friendship” as a second- or third-best option.

In my own life, the highest-value guys have very rarely had problems with “the friend zone.” If a chick won’t f**k them, they move on. Lower-value guys should do the same thing. Attention is the only tool modern guys have, and most guys waste it. No guy needs to be rude to a woman who rejects him, so it’s not like he can never say hi when she passes on the street, but he should withdraw attention. She’s not his friend. We all have internal mechanisms that make us want to lie to ourselves about all sorts of things. Being true to yourself and accepting the Red Pill is about not lying to yourself. When you don’t lie, you can assess your own weaknesses, assess how to fix them, and assess what you really want (as opposed to what you think you’re supposed to want). You may not entirely know what you want, or you may have multiple, conflicting desires. I have that problem right now. But I also acknowledge it and am aware of it. Not all problems can be solved. The female “friend” problem? That one’s easy to solve.

Hollywood knows exactly what to “do” with childless women

A head-in-the-sand feminist writes, “Hollywood Still Doesn’t Know What to Make of Childless Women.” But that’s not true: Hollywood reflects a lot of society and biology. Older women out of their child-bearing years are of no interest to men, who like younger and fertile women. Younger women aren’t interested in them except insofar as they’re a warning about what not to do. Older women who have children are focused on their children and families, not on spinsters. The audience for movies about childless women is very small.

We all reap what we sow. The writer, Megan Garber, is an overweight woman struggling to make a living writing for a content mill. She’s heading towards spinsterhood, so her interest in the issue makes sense.

Older women derive meaning from their families. Those without families usually bitterly regret not having them.

Disagree but be smart about it

I’m happy with intelligent disagreement, as I’ve mentioned before.

The need for intelligent disagreement may be why I’m not very into most Twitter, which seems to encourage the worst in most people, while being too short to be useful as a medium to exchange deep ideas.

It’s sort of like with game advice. I don’t think debating most game advice is very interesting. Hear the advice, go apply it on the streets and in your relationship. Does it work? Keep it. Does it not? Tweak it. Or jettison it. Figure it out for yourself.

I don’t really reply to game haters online, to the extent I see them. Game is about getting what you want out of your life and social relationships. It’s about understanding how women work and think and how to apply that knowledge. For guys who are utterly happy in their life and social relationships, I guess they don’t need game. Guys who are not getting what they want, need game. The ones who need and reject it are most strange to me.

I try to discern what is real and what is fake. Game appears real. So does evolutionary biology (game takes evolutionary biology and applies it to modern social relationships). That is my ideology. Try to understand what is real and true to the best of my abilities.

I know most people who learn of game will never put in the practice to make it work. That’s fine. Most people don’t put the effort into anything. It shows in the quality of their lives.

Try my best to make the world a more joyful place (game does this… women want to be seduced by hot guys).

I don’t like writing about political issues very much because those issues activate partisan identities that shut down learning. Framing an issue as political impairs the reasoning ability of liberals and conservatives. The end result of arguing about political issues is… more argument. By contrast, in fields that have learning and immediate consequences, it’s possible to learn. If a guy learns game, he bangs more hot chicks. He can then tell other guys what worked and what didn’t. If a guy learns data structures and algorithms, he can program a computer to do what he wants it to do. Politics doesn’t have that immediate feedback loop. Not national politics. Maybe some hyper-local politics have that feedback loop.

Moderation is on for this blog, but I approve non-stupid, non-asshole comments. My audience is small enough that I don’t attract haters or trolls.

The best disagreement addresses the substance of the disagreement; the worst is usually name calling, followed by ad-hominem attack, but even the best of us can slip in that direction. Let’s try not to do that.

In business, management is a truly hard problem. It requires listening to criticism, processing it, and being able to use, transform, or discard it. Most people can’t get past their emotional first reactions and into judging the substance of disagreement, taking into account all that is known about the problem area. Few people can do this. Those who can, and who can keep their egos in check during the search for the greater good, often thrive. This is a specialized application of the “disagree, but be smart about it” worldview. Amazon codifies this strategy as “disagree and commit.” Almost every business should adopt this ethos, but few do. How far could we get if we could get our own egos out of the way?

Age and players

A while ago Nash wrote,

>>Even if I never again crack open the thighs of a teenage girl, I think I will fuck many more young-20s girls (I’ve fucked a few already in 2018).

Nailing a teenage girl is great for the ego and psychology of an older guy but otherwise overrated (in my view). Ego and psychology boost are great, of course. On average, though, teens are flightier, more boring, and more anxious than girls who are even 20 or 21 and a bit more used to the world of normal sexual interaction and male attention. To be sure, some late teens are psychologically adult. Fewer, it seems, in this generation than in previous ones. It looks like too much time on the phone has stunted the social and psychological development of many teens.

If you’re going to nail chicks that young it is also probably a good idea to hang out near universities. There literally aren’t that many 17 – 19 year old girls around (I list “17” depending on age of consent in a guy’s state/country), so if a guy really wants to go that route, it helps to go where they are.

In my own life, I don’t notice the differences between hot 19 and 23 year olds, and I don’t have so much skirt on hand that I spend a lot of time thinking about the gap. Is she hot? Then I try to bang her. I don’t target tightly by age.

The real important question for a guy in his 40s is about his life. Does he have kids already? Want them? If he wants them, preferably with a sane woman, that should be in the background of his mind. He can easily master the daygame skillset, then have kids, but reality is what it is and a guy’s options for kids will narrow somewhat as he gets older.

I just read, “One of the most important life lessons: if you have no children, the last third of your life will be filled with increasing death. If you have children, the last of your life will be filled with increasing life. Choose wisely.” Most 50+ guys don’t seem to be most obsessed with clacking skirt… they seem most interested in their families. This is not the “last word,” and I’m not and never will be a guy to announce that chasing skirt is somehow meaningless.

Priorities do change. I have seen lots of guys who fucked off in their 20s and 30s suffer for it age 35+, when they have no good jobs, no good community, and few good options. Maybe age 18 – 28 was a wild ride, but then things suck. Some guys who are age 40 may be doing that to themselves. By age 55 or 60 they may want the family they were too busy to have. Will they be 60 and still chasing skirt? Could be.

I think a lot of guys need to get the skirt-chasing out of the way. I’d guess that means a minimum of 30 bangs, maybe 50. At some point diminishing returns likely kick in.

I can’t speak for all guys. Every guy’s situation is different. I’m merely trying to think things through.