Location-independent businesses are rarer than online seminar hucksters would have you believe

I see a lot of unlikely claims by guys online about location independence, independent income, etc…. they’re improbable, not impossible, but I worry about the low-information guys who are attracted to “location independence” but who don’t have the unique, non-commodity skills to get there.

The commodity / non-commodity concept comes from economics: in a perfectly competitive market, commodities move to the price of marginal production and distribution cost. Think of something like steel: a given grade of steel is a given grade of steel and is completely undifferentiated; if producer A can make steel $1 cheaper than producer B, the market will move towards producer A until producer A’s capacity is exhausted. In many fields workers are a lot like this. If you are working fast food, retail, etc., you are competing with a vast pool of local and sometimes global labor, and you are interchangeable with thousands, sometimes millions, of other people. You will likely not be able to command above-average wages without differentiated skills.

If you don’t have the attention and cognitive skills to read the above paragraph, or if you find it boring, you are not going to make it as a location-independent worker.

In most cases, people have to work for many years to develop differentiated skills, as well as the industry connections needed to deploy those skills effectively. Programming is a common example of this, but most programmers take many years to develop their skills, and many people lack the IQ necessary to be a programmer (that is why so many programmers with three years of industry experience and a CS degree make six figures… most people literally cannot do the work). There are many other examples. To become a doctor takes four years of college, then four years of medical school, then three years of residency. At the end you are a highly differentiated worker, but you are not location independent (mostly).

There are many other kinds of differentiated skills, but most of the guys pitching online seminars don’t have those skills and haven’t demonstrated those skills, though they often claim to have them. Something about the online world encourages a set of magical beliefs that you can, without real skills, learn how to make large amounts of money. Pretty f**kin unlikely.

So how does most of the world really work? Unless you are founding a tech startup or working for one of the big tech companies, it is very hard to make very large amounts of money right out of the gate (say, ages 22 – 30). Even tech founders and workers see much larger financial gains 10+ years in. Most people spend their early career building skills and building connections. Many people focus, wrongly, only one of those things. If you build skills without connections, you may have lots of skills, but you don’t have a way to leverage them. A couple years ago I wrote, Company loyalty is dead. Switch jobs every 18 months to two years [Career]. If you don’t build connections you will have a harder time switching jobs and getting the pay bumps from job switches.

To get 50%+ pay increases, you basically have to switch jobs. There is something in human psychology called “anchoring.” Once an “anchor” is set as a reference point, it’s very hard to re-set it. If your job at an organization is paying you $45,000, you are unlikely to get above $50,000 even if you are generating $100,000 of value for the organization. If you switch jobs you may be able to go up to $75,000 or more at the new organization. Then it’s possible, in two years, to go BACK to the old org, show them your $75,000, and negotiate for $90,000. Or $110,000. Six figures is another psychological barrier.

Switching jobs effectively usually requires connections, however, as well as a portfolio, if possible. So if you have skills but no connections, you retard your ability to get the new gig. If you develop connections without having skills, you may try to get jobs but then not be able to do them. Sometimes this works, as most of us have found worthless people in high-level jobs, but it is best if you have both. It’s like dating, you might be able to find the rare hot chick who is into a typical fat video gamer with limited ambition… it’s just going to be super rare to find her, and if you want success with women you’re better off doing the typical things, developing yourself, lifting, improving your social life, chatting up chicks, etc.

Markets are very efficient. Not perfectly efficient, but very efficient. So if you try to do “location independent business” without real skills, you are running into efficient markets without sufficient specialization, which is a recipe for stagnation. There are arbitrage opportunities out there… Someone who speaks flawless Mandarin and English might be able to exploit some. A random guy who is hearing about THE DREAM of getting out of the corporate grind… probably can’t.

The guys who make it with location independence have often built up non-commodity knowledge and execution ability. So many claims online are very implausible without being utterly impossible, and the guys who want to believe, want to believe so bad that they’re willing to blind themselves to reality.

Lots of guys reap most of their income gains between ages 35 and 55. By 35, information and reputation advantages have compounded sufficient to allow smart guys who are good workers to acquire the in-depth knowledge necessary to command high salaries. Most guys have also gained sufficient reputation in their industry to be known as a good worker. Very few unknown quantities get hired for mid- or high-level jobs. Too risky. You have to prove yourself first. Guys making good money usually have good skills, they’ve proven themselves, and they have good reputations. All things that are hard to do via online, location-independent businesses.

Being a guy is a relentless process of proving yourself. When two guys get together, they size each other up… is this other guy for real? Or is he full of shit? One problem with online gurus is that you can’t see them solve problems in real time. When you can do that… you really learn about a man. Whether he is effective or not. It is possible to seem effective without being effective… I have had to fire people like that before.

With chicks, you are seeing if they are for real… do they actually want sex… do they look the way they seem to online… etc. Often they are not for real.

I think there are more guys trying to sell “Location independent” seminars than there are guys who are in location independent businesses.

A lot of what you encounter online is really marketing and dreams, not reality. I think that reality-based persons are not spending that much time online, which is so often a waste of time (for me as well). There are a lot of attractive but unlikely claims being made online, and you are welcome to believe them if you want, but you are going to suffer if you believe the stories a lot of guys are selling.

To reiterate, you need to BUILD SKILLS and preferably industry knowledge and industry connections too. Most people do NONE of those things and as a consequence their careers suck. Most people eat too much sugar, get too little exercise, and watch too much TV, and therefore their bodies and their lives suck.

Most guys are going to make more money in conventional businesses and government than they are going to make in the wilds of the Internet… this is also why most smart guys are NOT going to come out as game experts or Red Pill guys. That’s a good way to lose your footing in the corporate and government worlds. That’s a good way to retard your earnings, maybe permanently. Once you are identified without ideologies too far outside the Overton Window, you may be permanently f**ked from earning the largest amounts of money. I would like to change the Overton Window, but the very first thing a game guy needs to do is recognize reality (or have a force of determination so strong that he creates his own reality… a lot of the best players seem to believe their own hype, which leads to success with chicks).

It’s totally true that you may be the exception who makes more money online than you will in most corporate jobs. But if you don’t have exceptional reasons to think you’re the exception, you’re probably the rule, and your career is going to reflect that. This isn’t as sexy a post as EARN SIX FIGURES ONLINE, LET ME SHOW YOU HOW, so the guys who really need it probably aren’t going to find it, but I want a single place to point the bullshit generators to when it’s time. I want readers to know also that I never said having an online, location-independent business is impossible (it’s not). Trying to build one without unique skills and strong connections is just very very unlikely and is contrary to how most business really works. I get the impression that most guys pitching one-man businesses either lack business experience OR have it, know what they’re pitching is bullshit, and pitch it anyway to separate the unwary or hopeful guy from his cash.

Who counts and who doesn’t in the game

A guy wants to know why I wrote that the two chicks from Tinder don’t really count… I don’t have a hard ruleset for who “counts,” and the principles drift over time: for these two, one girl was hot but also kind of dopey, and I can’t tell how much she liked me against how much she was trying to pump me for information about how to be a prostitute, while a real proper lay in my view has to be about two people who like each other, or like each other enough to f**k. I’m not convinced that I liked her enough, or she liked me enough, or that there wasn’t some financial value exchange going on… felt a little too much like consulting. I’ve also been on a couple dates in my life with younger chicks who were basically pumping me for career advice (if you go on enough dates with enough chicks, weird shit happens). It’s possible that I could have kept with her longer, not done the “nuclear” version of asking her to do a sex club… maybe it would have developed. But she is not who I’m looking for, despite her being hot. I also didn’t feel any connection and think she was the same, so why bother? She will drift off one way or another.

The other one wasn’t hot enough and also I should have just quit beforehand.

What “hot enough” means is going to depend on the guy in question. For me… usually she’s a high 6 at a minimum, more likely a 7. Honestly… 6s… some are “okay.” I can work the right one, it depends on the girl, though… if she is a high 6, on the low 7 border… she might “count.” On Tinder I couldn’t even hit that standard, and most of the chicks liking me were 5s or below, way off my own internal standards.

Like, if I were having intercourse with 5s… I could do it all day… it’s not really game… it’s just SMV mis-match. It wouldn’t be that much different from Keanu Reeves with 8s… he is a rich famous actor, so there is little “game” needed for him. He can just be. I could f**k a different fat chick every night, and, aside from wanting to kill myself before, during, and after, I could brag about all the chicks I’m getting because I’M SUCH AN ALPHA MALE HEAR ME ROAR.

“Who counts” also depends on where the guy is coming from… if you are a fat, video-game-playing f**kin idiot, and you manage to get a 4 or 5… that might “count” for you (even as you are working to improve yourself, right? right?). Depends on where you are… you want to be seeking chicks who are at the edge of your skills and abilities. If a low SMV guy is chasing 7+ chicks, he is probably signing up for loads of unpleasant rejection that may have psychological ramifications. This is also why I think you can safely ignore guys online writing about how all chicks are evil and bitches and on and on… chances are the guy is experiencing SMV mismatch. Same with chicks saying all guys are evil and assholes… chances are she’s fat and experiencing SMV mismatch.

For me… 8+ chicks will NEVER be easy, not consistently… there aren’t many, and I’m now outside of their most typical age ranges, in most cases. Sometimes I will be an 8’s natural type and it will be easy, but that is uncommon. I doubt 8 are easy for most guys talking online, consciously thinking about the game, like deadlifting twice your weight is not easy for almost any guy. Guys who are naturally gettin 8+ chicks… they’re probably not online.

Most guys online appear to exaggerate their achievements, god knows why as who really gives a f**k? It’s also not a totally objective process… some of the best sexual chemistry I’ve had has not been with the objectively hottest chicks, though the correlation is strong.

I also think a lot of the guys who get their game together, drop out of the online conversation, because they have nothing to add… and the vast majority of the online conversation is newbies talking to each other. Nothing wrong with being a newbie, but you can only answer basic questions so many times before you’re like, “dude, go read the background on this topic.”

Date-onomics: players should go where the gender ratio is good

I keep mentioning Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game in private, and I finally mentioned it in a post, but I didn’t elaborate, so: small changes in male-female ratios have pronounced effects in sex culture. If there are lots more guys than chicks, like engineering schools or military bases, there’s a lot of monogamy, a lot of long courtships, longer waits for sex, and more transfer of financial resources from men to chicks. If there are lots more chicks than guys, like liberal arts colleges and New York City, there are more hookups, less monogamy, shorter courtships, and more casual sex. In American cities, there are profound differences in male-female ratios. In most cities, there are more single college-educated females than single college-educated males. San Francisco and Seattle are exceptions: those cities have more dudes than chicks. New York and L.A. have among the most skewed ratios, in favor of men, in the country: both have far more chicks than dudes. Get out of SF and Seattle if you can. Choose similar jobs in NYC or LA.

If you are a guy, you want to go where the chicks are and the dudes aren’t. I have said before that there are really three levels of game: 1. Your interpersonal game itself, 2. Your underlying value and 3. Your environment. Ideally, a guy will try to improve all three at once. If you have strong game and value, but a terrible environment, the game may still be very hard for you, because you are competing heavily against all other men. If the opposite is true, you may still succeed despite yourself. Date-onomics also explains why so much of the online advice guys give each other is useless… we don’t know how cool a guy is, what his life is like, what he looks like, how he acts around other people, or where he lives. The last one is important, as guys who live in cities will do better than guys who live in rural areas (a lot more men than women) or suburbs.

It’s strange to me that almost no players talk about this. Many players talk about Mark Manson and The Book of Pook, but this should be on the player’s reading list, despite its extremely Blue Pill framing.

The author says “I realize most people do not want to think about supply and demand when contemplating matters of the heart.” Players sure as fuck should. If you are a player or just a guy who gives a shit about your sex life, don’t take the job in San Francisco. Take it in L.A., NYC, or almost anywhere else instead. If you are a guy debating whether you should go to college, the author writes “By 1992, the female-to-male ratio among freshly minted graduates reached 54:46. At first glance, 54:46 may not sound like much of a gap, but it meant 17 percent more women than men graduating from college.” “By 2012, the college gender gap has doubled to 34 percent more women than men.” College is where the chicks are, so there can be good reasons to go there.

The book also uses college education as a proxy. If you’re a guy who looks, acts, earns, and behaves like you’re college educated, whether you actually are or not is probably irrelevant. If you’re a guy who behaves like an idiot and you don’t have good game, then you are probably not going to get chicks whether you went to college or not.

Admirably, the author is willing to use words most mainstream authors will not “A surplus of women in cities may be a geographic manifestation of the general phenomenon of hypergyny, that is, women’s marrying up.” I think the correct term is “hypergamy,” but whatever, that’s something almost no one admits in the mainstream (except Jordan B. Peterson, whatever his other flaws).

To be sure, New York has downsides in that it’s expensive as fuck all. Birger has tables from the Census showing the male-female ratio in different cities. Chicago has 40% more college educated chicks 22-29 and 20% more college educated chicks age 30 – 39. Same in New Orleans. Same in Vegas (although I don’t like Vegas as much because of the lack of foot traffic on streets; it is also about driving). Austin, Texas is not as favorable to guys, but Houston is. Nashville is favorable to guys. Philadelphia is.

The book has story after story about supposedly “gorgeous” women age 30 – 45 and their travails dating. I do not sympathize much with those women because they just waited until their sexual market value had begun to decline to value marriage. Much like this chick and numerous others you’ll read about in the media, all with the same whine about the same predictable problem. The highest-level men don’t care that much about women’s careers; high-level men just want a woman who is economically functional. I myself like hearing about teachers and nurses, because they are economically functional without being married to their jobs. I’m not as thrilled by women in the corporate rat race who are sweating because they can’t fit a baby and their careers together. I, like many men, think those women are fine for casual sex but problematic for relationships. This book helps explain the spinster epidemic overtaking us all.

I’m getting off topic, but players need to know that where they live will affect how their dating life works. A bunch of guys writing about the game right now seem to be living in the Bay Area… maybe that’s why they’re writing about the game… the Bay Area is game on hard mode. Bully for them but I would refer it on easy mode.

Roy Walker didn’t like New York, but he’s comparing it to London/Europe, so I don’t have his perspective. It does seem like Eastern Europe and Russia just have hotter chicks than any other country, but, again, I don’t have the experience to offer personal testimonials.

This book is also useful for guys who have a son. Girls do much better at school than boys because they typically mature faster. A 5 year old boy is about as mature as a 6 year old girl. Same with a 15 year old girl and a 16 year old boy. If you have a boy, try to get him to start school relatively late, compared to his peers. That will likely improve his school prospects. Most people don’t do this and that’s part of the reason there are way more girls in college than boys.

In summary, ignore the Blue Pill wrapping and please read the book for yourself, taking from it the important lessons about environment. I am guessing that far more urban, college-educated women read books than do rural, not-college-educated men, so the author has wisely decided to pander to his audience. Many guys report that the game feels way different in some cities than in others, and that has been my experience as well.

Most chicks feel anxiety and uncertainty, and most guys never realize it

The three phases of the seducer | Hans Cormyn” is a good Nash essay that hits something I have been trying to articulate here and there and yet have been unable to articulate… it’s the third point in this series,

— First Phase: “Does she like me?”
— Second Phase: “Do I like her?”
— Third Phase: “What do I need to do to make her feel beautiful?”

The “Third Phase” only happens, though, when the chick is deeply into your world/frame. Kind of like what I write about in “Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is” and “The holidays are coming up: shit tests, comfort tests, and gifts [intermediate and above]:” a chick has to feel that she is earning validation of her beauty from a high-status, cool guy in order for that validation to mean anything. Lots of chicks can get meaningless validation from whoever… but that validation is garbage. It’s like a moron admiring your intelligence. If a moron compliments you on how smart you are, do you take the compliment seriously? Of course not. Same thing here, with chicks.

Most chicks, when you get underneath their social surface and social armor (many guys never do), are just not very confident. Even many very beautiful women are insecure about their looks, their relationships with guys, etc. Many women really are like liquids, looking for vessels to give them shape and purpose. The better you know chicks, the more apparent this becomes.

Even a lot of bitchy, unappealing behavior comes from a place of weakness, fear, and uncertainty… not a place of strength. When I have written about trying to build women up… this is what I am trying to get at. Most chicks are adrift and need a man’s approval, but most guys don’t recognize this dynamic and only perceive the surface level. That was true of me for a long time.

When we laugh at or ignore shit tests, when we’re non-reactive to some kinds of typical bad female behavior, when we laugh off rejection and go find a chick worthy of our attention… we are working at these deeper levels. I think I only began to access these deeper levels around age 30. It took me like 15 years to figure out they exist. It’s hard to get below the surface level. I think a lot of guys who get this low, find a woman or two or three they want to be with and drop out of the conventional dating market.

Over time… a lot of time, too much time… I’ve figured out that even a lot of very attractive chicks are insecure about their looks, bodies, and performance. Why? They are comparing themselves to chicks who are +2 or +3 above them… they are comparing themselves to bullshit photoshopped advertisements… they are comparing themselves to the chicks they think the guy they most desire can get. There is still a lot of sex negativity in society, so chicks are worried because they know guys want sex (just as chicks do), but chicks worry about their reputations, what will happen if they seem to like sex too much, etc. etc. Chicks compete with each other quite a bit, and many chicks are worried about what their stupid friends will think of their sexual behavior. Mature, psychologically stable chicks won’t have these problems, or will understand that they need to mute these problems, but the number of mature, psychologically stable chicks is small.

So a guy who a chick heavily invests in… she really wants his validation and reassurance. That is valuable to her. Validation that she is beautiful, that she is not a slut, that she is doing good and normal things, etc. She is probably pretty uncertain about herself because she is looking “up” at the hottest/coolest/most whatever chicks (and dudes). You can call this an aspect of hypergamy if you want… I’m not a huge fan of emphasizing that idea, so I’ll mention it and move on. A girl wants to feel like she is replaceable but simultaneously that she will not be replaced.

That’s a hard place to be.

The girl I call SA girl… was not convinced of her own (phenomenal) good looks. Neither was a girl I met a couple years ago, who worked at a coffee shop…. very solid 8 while naked, yet convinced of all sorts of weird stuff, like her butt was too big (quite small, actually, too small for some guys likely), or that her boobs were asymmetrical (they were, very slightly, which is totally normal). And the number of girls who have a love-hate relationship with sex… too many to count. That is why Dr. Ruth is so famous, as she talked about sex honestly and positively… even today that is quite rare.

So a lot of chicks are scared and looking for validation from top guys. Sort of like guys are looking for validation from chicks; is my dick big enough, do I last long enough, am I better than her ex, can this girl finally bestow confidence on me, etc. etc. All the insecurities that the Internet seduction boards overflow with.

A lot of guys are insecure themselves, and/or chasing girls way above them in SMV, and/or wrongly fixated on one girl whose acceptance or, more often, rejection they hang their whole self-image on. If you’re a guy in middle or high school… and your experience of chicks is based on chasing the top 10% of chicks (there are some age effects at work too, more on those later), many of whom are themselves uncertain, scared, etc… you might perceive chicks as having all the power. “Bottom” guys who never adequately develop themselves, yet desire top-tier chicks, experience the same. Many of them experience chicks as having all the power, and guys as having little or none.

I perceived life that way until I was in my early 20s or so. It took me a long time to understand the chicks’s perspectives… to read evolutionary biology books… to talk to chicks who I might perceive as having the power, to realize the chick herself doesn’t perceive that… to understand the weird paradoxes that underlie a lot of female psychology. For a guy, too, understanding that a lot of chicks are just f**king random goes a long way to explaining a given woman’s behavior. The woman herself probably doesn’t know what’s driving her… how can a guy expect her to articulate it to him? Male sexual desire is also a pretty simple algorithm: more sex with any acceptably hot chick is a win. Female sexual psychology is more elaborate, more contingent, more confused, more uncertain. Guys try to solve it like it’s an engineering problem, only to discover a lot of chicks don’t work that way.

A successful player gets to know chicks… and sees many of their internal uncertainties… and realizes that chicks need the guy to help them be whole. Ms. Slav has some of that, though the ways in which she does are too specific for me to state them here. The girl I call “#2” in the book had a LOT of that, because she couldn’t process her own inner roaring sexual desire with her societal conditioning, so she needed me to process it externally for her. SA Girl had had a bad boyfriend or something like that and had somewhat stunted sexual expression and expectation because of it. Low-cut top girl seemed to be pretty complete, actually, though she has other problems in my view. Peaches also seems pretty complete. Most the chicks I slept with in college weren’t that complete, but largely as a function of age, their own uncertainty, and the uncertainties of the guys around them.

Young and inexperienced guys think chicks have all the power. That’s because they don’t get that 1. Chicks bear greater sex risk via pregnancy, 2. From puberty well into the 20s, chicks have greater sexual power than dudes on average, and 3. Most chicks are looking to “date up” and often have the ability to do so. Almost all guys can find at least ONE CHICK who will be into them… the problem is the quality of that chick…

There is also the notion, now somewhat common among guys in the seduction community boards, that chicks just get their sexual market value, while guys often have to earn their SMV. This is basically true. An attractive girl just shows up to the dance, if you will, and has a lot of value by virtue of being hot. There are a small number of guys like that, but most guys have to earn it or build it. What “earning” or “building” means will differ by age.

By age 30, the sexual marketplace switches around a lot of the time, since guys are willing to date from age 18 on up, while most chicks want their age or older. They get fewer options and their biological clocks are ticking. Many are encumbered by children. So a lot of guys from puberty well into their 20s perceive chicks as having all the sexual power… and yet that can change, if the guy keeps working on his value and is willing to date the full spectrum of chicks. Guys also don’t realize that some percentage of young chicks are getting trained by much older dudes in sex arts and confidence. I didn’t fully get that when I was younger… now that I have been the trainer, I get it.

Then there is the sex itself. If you understand female physiology, you understand that most chicks cannot orgasm without clitoral stimulation (there are exceptions; one of my favorite girls was an exception). That is why I wrote Tell your girl to use a vibrator during sex, and other bedroom tips. Chances are that she needs her fingers or your tongue on her clit to orgasm, and this is not always easy/simple during PIV intercourse. But most chicks never think to add toys or, if they do, they worry that the guy is going to think he is not enough or, worse, that she is a sex-crazy slut. Many guys, meanwhile, feel they are not a REAL MAN if she does orgasm ALL OVER HIS MAGIC PENIS. Because it is MAGIC, she CRAVES it uncontrollably. Sometimes this can happen, yes, and it has happened to me… more often, she needs the full-body experience. But she wants it without feeling bad. Who can deliver that feeling to her?

YOU can.

Guys who don’t work to develop their value, game, etc., never see the uncertain, fearful, anxious sides of attractive women. Top players do.

By the way, I still get ice cold rejections from chicks, blowouts, etc. I’m not some super-player. But I have learned (mostly) to let it go. And I have seen enough of chicks to see that many are worth trying to “build up…” but only AFTER they have invested deeply in me (or you). If you try to build up a chick who has not invested in you, you are just another beta dude feeding her free and unearned resources, attention, etc. As so often happens, there are guys talking past each other online, at different “levels” of the game or seduction process. A guy at one level, may not even PERCEIVE the other level(s) are there. This goes both ways, too. A bottom guy reading this will see women’s bitchy, cold social armor and think most of this post is ridiculous. A top guy reading this post may read it and think that it’s obvious to him, isn’t it obvious to every guy? I have been both in my life, at different times, with different chicks, etc. Probably my biggest transition is to let a lot of the bullshit go, to stop feeding attention to chicks who aren’t going in the direction I want them to go, to accept that most chicks will say no, to focus attention on the chicks who say yes or who are on the path to saying yes. A chick who is fundamentally a “no…” needs to be chucked. A girl who is a “maybe” is where a lot of the game is.

Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures

On Twitter there’s a dumb thread about a chick complaining about guys using her for sex and then ditching her, usually after bad sex. That’s an easy diagnosis: she’s almost certainly chasing guys who are +2 or +3 above her in sexual market value (SMV). They’re not going to date her, they’re not going to try in bed, but if she offers herself up one of those guys will go for her. I’ve been in the guy’s position before… my natural hunting ground is 7s: chicks lower than that aren’t of much interest to me, while chicks who are true 8s, are just not that common and are often particular. I’ve been there with 8s, I’ve succeeded, but I don’t see/meet very many of them, let alone bang them. I’m also just some hot chicks’s type, and when that happens I can cruise right into bed.

A few years ago (around the time I started writing on Reddit, or just before that) I tried an app called Kinkd, which advertised itself as being something like Tinder or Feeld for kinky people; as players know, “kinky = easy & sex positive.” Downside, though, is that most openly kinky chicks are not the best looking. Fetlife has the online market pretty covered, but I gave Kinkd a shot and managed to meet two okay chicks, high 6s, without too much work; both were novices and liked that I knew about parties, events, etc. Don’t underestimate social proof in this area, either. Both chicks seemed like they might be 7s, based on their duplicitous pics, but real life reveals all. One was a straightforward once a week lay for a couple weeks, and things ended when she said that “all guys are the same” because I said I liked her but didn’t think we are compatible.

The other chick I did more or less the same thing with, although she was more reluctant to have actual sex. But the first time I saw her, I basically fingered her g-spot into a multi-minute orgasm of some kind (at least, she said it was). It was a strange experience for me and, I think, for her. Did do a lot of bonding in a small space, though, and because my SMV was higher than hers and I also didn’t slut-shame her, she was into me fast. Too fast. They’re the kind of chicks I am now mostly trying to turn down, as marginal notches.

I actually think it’s good for guys to give chicks a good sexual experience, even if the guy decides he’s not that into the chick. It’s not that much extra work, yet many guys don’t bother. Most chicks are also responsive to toys, and something like an njoy pure wand is a good tool for both a chick a guy is into and one he isn’t (just for different reasons).

Female SMV is pretty straightforward for short-term activity and a little more complex over the long term. Male SMV is trickier and more contingent; chicks have a wider array of factors they’re looking at and are just more arbitrary. But if a guy is getting consistent blowouts, his SMV is probably too low. Chicks are also herd animals and will value a guy with a girlfriend, even a low-status one, over a guy without one. Having one makes it easier to get the next. Guys can branch-swing too, although most lack the skill, discipline, game, and inclination to do so.

Most chicks who complain about pump-and-dumps are simply chasing guys too high above them. Chicks with reasonable expectations find what they want. People who have an accurate assessment of their SMV and act accordingly tend to do fine. This is more common among guys but still less common than it should be.

Everyone has the same options: improve their value; improve their game; change their environment. Chicks who are chasing guys +2 or +3 above them… are going to get the kind of outcomes this person is complaining about.

Added: Another story, same basic situation. Almost no mainstream writers are willing to write frankly and honestly about SMV, particularly female SMV. That does a disservice to women, but the market for “You’re perfect, just the way you are” is much larger than the market for “This is how the real world works.”

Planning your life, ten years out

One way to assess your life now is to try and think about where you might want to be in ten years, then take daily steps towards wherever that place is. Chances are, you should want some aspect of your life to be different in ten years, but what aspect that is will vary by the guy. I’m thinking about this because I’m pretty sure that, in ten years, I won’t want to be doing what I’m doing now. But what should I be doing instead? That’s the key question. For a long time, chasing chicks has basically been my sport and hobby, and a lot of my life has been oriented around that activity. Things that support that goal I pursued, and things that detracted from that goal I mostly avoided. I’m okay with where I am right now, but I don’t think I want to be in the same place ten years from now… which means I need to think about what changes I should make.

This applies to guys in a lot of situations regarding women, sex, etc.:

  • If you’re 20, in ten years you’ll probably still want to be in the game.
  • If you’re 30, ten years out you might still want to be in, but you might not.
  • At 40… maybe so, but I start to wonder about that.

I observe that, the older people get, the more their families take priority and the less they care about a lot of other stuff, possibly including getting laid by the widest array of new chicks. This is an “on average” observation, so maybe you are different. In addition, I think many people go through life epicycles of 5 – 10 years. So someone who does monogamy or, much worse, a marriage from age 25 – 40 may get out of it and want desperately to f**k around for a couple years. A lot of people need to have sufficient variety in their life to make it intersting, but not so much variety as to destabilize it.

I have been dealing with some injuries, and I have been of course been observing the people around me. The older people I know who have families are almost always more satisfied than the ones without. I think we need the right, productive kind of struggle to live satisfied lives. For a long time, the right, productive kind of struggle for me has been in the game, with all of its attendant challenges. The important question is what should happen next. Some advice generalizes well to guys in all states of life (lift, stretch, maintain physical well-being, read books), but other advice is more age- and context-specific.

Some guys want to chase chicks till the moment they can’t anymore. If that’s you, that’s fine… one time I thought it would be me… now I’m not so convinced.

Red Pill and seduction world downsides

Selection bias” is the shortest possible version of this list, but let me give the longer version too. There are many good, revelatory ideas in the Red Pill and seduction worlds, and these worlds are better than the default many guys learn in school. Any system or ideology will have its blind spots, and real life is much more complex than any ideology.

1. Most of the guys involved seem to be or have been failures with women; this breeds a lot of resentment and unhappiness, and some of those feelings never seem to abate.

2. Guys who have successful relationships with functional women don’t seem very likely to end up writing for the Red Pill. Guys who get cheated on, dumped, etc. seem much more likely to end up reading the Red Pill, looking for answers, and venting on it. Guys in successful relationships (they do exist) never enter, or glance at it before moving on.

3. Red Pill guys overstate hypergamy, female mate competition, etc. The larger world and culture UNDERstate these topics and forces, however. The reality is somewhere between the poles.

4. Contemporary feminism is bad but it also has less relevance in most people’s every day, day-to-day lives than it does online or among a small coterie of humanities professors.

5. Many of the leading guys have some pretty serious things wrong with them, or wrong in their psychology. They can be right about a lot of things and there can still be significant problems that show up, intentionally or inadvertently, in their writing.

6. The women who react to street pickup are probably not a random sample of women, so drawing conclusions about all women can be dangerous. I’m not arguing you shouldn’t do street pickup (in actuality I believe the opposite), but those who respond to cold opens are likely not representative of the broader population.

7. In many cases (not all), you’re learning things from (relative) failures rather than successes.

8. All dogmas are to be avoided.

9. It’s not possible to separate out the true players from the keyboard jockeys.

The biggest upside of the Red Pill is that it tells guys that we have to improve, we have to up our game, we have to protect ourselves, we have to generate value, and the world is not fair. You will often be fouled and the best solution is often to accept the foul and focus on mission and improvement. You can complain or you can improve.

If you study and practice seduction, you will also learn what’s possible. Many average guys think that only a tiny number of athletes, musicians, etc. get peak sexual experiences with top chicks. That’s not true. Such experiences are open to a very large swath of guys, if those guys realize what’s possible and work towards it. I admit that I made this error myself. Until relatively late in the game, probably around age 30, I didn’t fully realize what was possible. I did well from my late teens to mid-20s, but I didn’t fully realize what is possible until much later.

I’m also the kind of person who wonders about why things are the way they are, and it was clear to me as a teen that what I was told about sex, sexuality, and women by the larger society was not the whole story. The Red Pill and seduction communities are much closer to the truth than the conventional social narratives about mean, oppressive guys and wilting, innocent women. Women are much more sexually charged than is commonly portrayed and many guys never learn this.