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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Advertisements

Favorite tactic: girls on dates [FR]

I dunno why, but I’ve had an eye for girls waiting on dates and especially girls on bad dates, and I like trying sneaky shit like telling girls, “You look bored waiting for your date.” One of my typical openers at a bar when I see a lone girl clearly waiting for someone is, “You must be waiting for a date. You think it’ll be any good?” Sometimes they’re waiting for a husband or boyfriend, but sometimes they’re not, and it’s a good quick icebreaker that starts with a quick sexual frame that isn’t gross.

This isn’t exactly an [FR], but it has some [FR] elements.

One recent example was in a coffee shop. There was an older but still slender and tight blonde woman who I pegged to be in her late 30s to early 40s. She was with a super nerdy, overweight and balding guy who was talking to her about programming and explaining his bitcoin company to her. I actually thought he was pretty interesting but her body language was so obvious that you’d have to be blind (or a total nerd I suppose) to miss it.

He got up to use the bathroom. I turned to her and said, “I can see your date isn’t going well. How’s online dating?” She said it wasn’t very good. I was, “That’s too bad. Here, write down your number quickly and we’ll go out. No bitcoin talk, I promise.”

Got the number and said, “You’re a former dancer, right?” She said, “How’d you know?” It’s obvious but I guess most guys are dumb. Guy came back and I studiously read my book.

(There is a term for this, I think it’s called cold lead, where you guess something about a person. If they say no, you can ask a followup question about them, and if they say yes they think you’re a brilliant person. Sherlock Holmes stories are filled with such things. Con men and “psychics” also use this technique. Smart people know how to see through it but it can be powerful in the moment even to smart people, and if someone is open to being seduced, wellllll. . . .)

We went out two days later. During the date, she told me that she wanted to find someone to have kids with, and I told her honestly that I’m the wrong person for that, but I’m the right person to see in the meantime. Through the date I could see her struggle with her principle (only guys who might give her a last-ditch shot at children) with her desire (sex is still fun).

I calibrated towards being a physically oriented sex guy. IMO it’s bad to lead on older women who want kids with the promise of monogamy and kids. They have only a limited period of time to have kids and it’s unethical to deprive them of that chance. Yes, women do many unethical things to men, but I still believe that having kids is one of the most important things a person can do, and even if women have mis-prioritized their lives they should still get their shot. Some things that most consider unethical are, properly considered, ethical, like sleeping with women who are married or have boyfriends (another thing I like to do). But with a woman who wants kids, it’s fine to say I’m not a kid guy and they should have fun in the meantime till they meet the kid guy.

We talked about dancing and her barre routine too. Lots of fitness things. I have been in this situation before, and some women who want kids fast thank me for my honesty and say no. Good for them. I hope they have kids. This one bit and we saw each other for a while. At the end she broke down crying saying that she wanted me and that the only guys who wanted her were guys she didn’t want. I felt bad for her but to be honest that’s the kind of dumb shit I expect to hear from 23-year-old girls, not women in their 30s or 40s. She is old enough to know beter but like so many people she wants contradictory things and can’t reconcile those things.

Like a lot of women, she wants children and a long-term relationship, but she’ll settle for sex right now, especially when she’s frustrated by a guy without game who she met online.

Evolutionary biology underpins game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since most women don’t even understand their own internal desires or states, the likelihood of there being an intelligible reason for her rejection of a guy who’s generally done things right is low. And for her that’s okay. Someone else will pitch her tomorrow. That’s why guys pitch a lot.

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

For normal guys, social proof can have a similar function. What might turn a “no” or “maybe” girl into a fast “yes” girl is seeing another girl get that man. Suddenly, he’s scarce. Scarce goods and services carry high prices.

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

Women also have emotional modules that protect them from cads. Women simultaneously want a guy who other women want but who won’t abandon them once they’re pregnant. That’s a tricky line to walk and explains why their behavior often looks erratic to guys, who just want more sex with more hotties.

It’s also why women will produce both “shit tests” and “comfort tests.” Guys who are new to game and bad with women have never experienced “comfort tests,” so when they start the game they become too much of a jerk and scorch leads that could pan out with a little less asshole and a little more deftness.

Women have multiple conflicting internal desires, and those conflicts manifest themselves in ways that seem strange to guys. Once a guy beings to understand the underlying mechanisms, he can start to accept the situation.

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

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

I also think about whether guys doing game are more likely to meet incoherent and incongruent girls. Girls who really know that they want a guy and a family stat don’t put up with operator “game” guys. They look for provider guys (not automatically a negative thing IMO, just a description) and if they  know what they’re about they get one by filtering out hot casual sex guys. They have a coherent plan that they genuinely want and they execute it. They are willing to overlook some features (often looks, presence, social dominance, that kind of thing) in order to achieve their real goal of children and house. Those girls are out there but game guys don’t get exposed much to them for obvious reasons.

Lots of girls think they want this because society tells them to want it, but many don’t actually want it, so they come off as incoherent and incongruent. Or they want it, but not when they meet a hot guy who they like. They say “I want a nice guy to settle down with” and then have sex with a random two days later. Guys notice and think, “Oh, girls are dumb. Girls are stupid.” Not exactly. They experience internal conflict and desire that shifts from day to day and sometimes even hour by hour. Guys who want casual sex are looking for girls who have shifted into an openness for casual sex, even though their superficial long-term plan might be “marriage with a sweet guy.” Guys want to be that two-days-later guy.

Girls who really like sex and are sex positive (also not a big group) aren’t as much into “game” or games per se. Their beliefs (sex is fun and we should have more of it) are congruent with their actions. These are pretty rare. Most don’t openly advertise their beliefs because they’ll be besieged by dudes.

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

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