“I don’t know who I am anymore”

Bike Girl told me, “I don’t know who I am anymore,” and she was referencing sex clubs and group sex dates. I didn’t handle her as well as I could have, I think because I’ve been through this before and I couldn’t get up the emotional affect necessary to deal with it properly. Instead I was half engaged during the conversation and that confused her and, I think, made her try even harder.

I reassured her that she is a good girl and that I’m watching out for her and that she doesn’t have to do anything she doesn’t want to do. I think she fears losing me to other women at sex parties. For kind of good reasons. Sex with a new person is very intense and humans, especially women, are primed to pair bond with guys they have sex with. I don’t know how to say this without being arrogant, but I combine looks/masculinity/presence and career/money/earning effectively, or more effectively than most guys. Most guys do the one or the other. Realistically, most guys do neither, but most attractive, dominant guys have weak careers and most strong career guys are fat and repulsive. Or at least look like they’ve spent their life on their careers.

So Bike Girl is having, I think, both an identity and relationship crisis (or doubts) at once. We’ve been talking explicitly about open relationships and how to live non-monogamously, and for her I think it’s a lot to take in. For most girls it is. Some chicks have been searching for this kind of thing for their entire lives and take right to it, but they’re in the minority.

It takes a lot of re-programming to get an average woman into a non-monogamous mindset. There are non-average women who like sex enough, or who have sufficiently damaged emotions, to jump right in. They’re the exception. It may also depend on who has greater investment in the relationship. Since I’m almost always less invested than the woman, the women is more worried about losing me. But with non-monogamy, she can lose me two ways: she can lose me by agreeing (and thus seeing me have sex with other women) but she can also lose me by not agreeing (because she’s not doing what all those other dirty chicks will do).

She’s caught, psychologically, in other words, and I think last night I saw Bike Girl thrashing in this trap. This contradiction. To her it’s all new. But to me it’s not. I’ve been in it for long enough to see the problems. Because of my relative experience, I’ve held back more, and let her take a lot of the first steps with others, and worked to let her get comfortable. For example, it’s common for a person (guy, realistically) with a new partner to let her be the focus of the other couple, and for the person (guy) not to have sex with the other woman the first time, in order to let the partner acclimate.

I’ve done some of that. I think last night was also a reaction to the couple from New Years Eve, who I mentioned. The woman is incredibly beautiful, and she makes Bike Girl nervous. Bike Girl is in the same league but the blonde is at least a solid point higher. The blonde’s guy seems to have his virtues but I think I’m a bit better and kinkier in bed than he is. I think Bike Girl is worried about the heat between the blonde and me, which is not quite matched by what is between her and the other guy.

This is speculation and I don’t know for sure, but it does match experience and what I know of female psychology, as well as Bike Girl’s personality. Bike Girl has been with me long enough to be past the casual stage, so she wants to figure out if she’s going to be with me and non-monogamous over the long term, or with me and make me monogamous, or if she should get rid of me and protect herself emotionally or psychologically. I respect that last choice, too. It may be the rational one for her.

I don’t know where things will go with Bike Girl. I think she knows or suspects that, on some nights when I’ve not been with her, I’ve been with other women. Not a lot of nights, but definitely a few. I frankly don’t have the time or sexual energy to have boundless relationships anymore. Sex every other day is now plenty for me (in college I’d prefer twice a day).

I don’t say that I’ve seen other women to Bike Girl, I don’t rub her face in it, and I’m not trying to be mean to her, but it is what it is. I’ve also done less of this simply because she is very good at meeting my sexual needs, and I think she knows that the better she is about that, the better things will be between us. But she’s also figuring out that on a lot of weekends I’d rather do sex parties, or a specific number of other things, than I would like to do her dumb chick activities. I tell her to do those alone and she is torn: she wants to be with me on the one hand but knows my independent nature on the other. In some ways I’m very patterned, very mechanical, choosing a small number of activities very specifically. Some chicks get bored with my way of being. They don’t like that I don’t care about their friend’s birthday or about seeing that movie or doing stuff for the Instagram pic.

I think Bike Girl also isn’t that used to guys with options. I get the sense she’s used to “dating down.” I don’t know why, because she has a great body, but I think her exes have either been very short FWBs or guys who are more into her than she was into them. So now she’s in a reversed situation and it disorients her.

Oh yeah, and somewhere in the midst of it I told her that I love her, which I probably shouldn’t have done either. Oops. I have a thing about telling chicks I love them… usually during sex… then never mentioning it again. Probably bad game and bad for the chick’s emotional health. But I did it. Can’t take it back now.

So that is where we stand. We are supposed to see another couple tonight and I think that’s going to happen. I will have to get a hotel room because my place will be off-limits.

Bike Girl understands a lot without being able to articulate what she understands. Like I think she understands that a person who is really serious about fitness and diet is also serious about sex. Why is a man so diligent about the gym that he won’t be thrown off by female needs? Because he’s serious about finding another woman if the current one doesn’t work out. Other women have also seen my obsessions with swimming, working out, and not eating sugar as a threat to them. And they’re a little right about that.

Maybe I need to take another week off. That typically restores me to equilibrium. This isn’t much of a “game” post. Get good enough at game (or being) and the problem becomes relationships, not sex.

I don’t know if Bike Girl will re-mold her personality, break, or suffer. They all seem possible. But now we’ve got to the point where she has to accept this as her new normal or start again. Re-molding a personality is very hard and I’ve been through it multiple times. Being outside the mainstream and outside typical cultural expectations has its costs.

Catch and release women who want families

This is a controversial one, and it’s only relevant to guys with intermediate or advanced game.

I think it’s wise to release older chicks (at least age 25, likely older) who want to have a family, when you (a man) don’t want one, or don’t want one yet, or don’t want one with her.

This point emerges emerges from Nash’s post, Back to daygame, a breakup, and a close call. He breaks up with an amazing girl, Miss Thick, because “her kids/family goals were real and that I respected them.” So I wanted to know how old she is…

She is 29… and from China. She’s a “Chinese” girl at heart… but an artsy, and unusual one.

Then I like the idea of letting her go and not having her dangle a lot of prime reproductive years. Let her go and tell her that, if her next serious relationship doesn’t work out, she can come back for a month or two of fun and recovery. She may come back or she may not.

That’s in line with what I wrote about frame and non-monogamy

over time [most] women have a biological need to find guys to have kids with and subsidize them and their kids. That’s part of the reason long-term, undefined, FWBs-type relationships are so uncommon. Few chicks will allow them, at least past the age of 25. Even if they do, they will drop the FWB when they find a hot-enough provider guy.

(If you’re dating a chick under the age of 25 in a contemporary Western country, you can ignore the last two paragraphs, because chicks that age are all about the feelz and the hot sex.)

Players know that it’s uncommon to have an undefined FWB-type relationship with a girl for more than 18 months. Even six months without the “where are we going?” talk is uncommon, because most chicks who don’t have a family want one. They may fuck up en route to getting a family, they may hit menopause, they may say they want one thing while in a cold state and do another thing while horny, but they want a family most of the time.

[Nash says “Lover” is a better word than “FWB,” and I also misstated minor parts of Nash’s story.]

Guys who are dating women over age 26 – 29 should cut those women free and tell them, “Girl, go get your provider guy.” This advice goes against some of the “Red Pill” comments amid the hardass maxims of anger phase warriors.

Guys can string along a girl through a lot of her prime fertility years… yes, the girl should be responsible and break it off, but girls are weak, just like guys, and prone to wishful thinking… just like guys. Guys who put girls in that position will also often find… SURPRISE!… the birth control failed and you’re going to be a DADDY! You jack her around, she’ll jack you around.

It’s unnecessary to waste years of a woman’s prime child-bearing life, and a guy with strong game will find another girl, maybe a better one. So the chick who wants kids the guy isn’t going to willingly provide should be released. Her family is the most important part of her life and you should help her lead her best life.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t sleep with chicks age 25 – 40. That would be insane. Those chicks want one-night stands and orgasms and hot lovers, just like younger chicks. I’m only saying you shouldn’t string them along for long periods of prime fertility time. You should be direct about not being their baby’s father. It’s tempting to tell her, “Maybe I’ll want kids… someday…” while her eggs wither.

In my view, it’s often better to be the bigger person and enable people to live the right way. For most women, that means letting her have a family. Normal girls in the right age bracket who want kids will leave the guy when she figures out he’s a player, but some need the push. At least be honest, and then let her go when she’s ready.

If a guy gets into a position of strength, he should get into the habit of helping people build the right lives (this is NOT being a doormat “nice guy”). Guys in a position of strength and choice shouldn’t string along chicks in their prime fertility years. Guys in a position of strength should try to help others become who they are meant to become.

I don’t preach about living better. Not much. I do show it. That means zero sugar. That means inviting chicks (and guys!) to the gym with me, after an appropriate period of time. Obviously I’m not doing deadlifting on the first date. But if I’m going to the gym I invite her to go with me, whoever the “her” is. I’ve probably taught ten or fifteen girls how to swim for exercise or how to lift. That’s ten or fifteen more than most guys. If a girl is going to become part of my life, she’s going to do what I do and learn how to do it. Most guys have lives of TV, video games, and Internet. Not much of interest to a girl in there.

Those girls also know I’m serious about the body. Talking about the joys of lifting in an online dating profile won’t totally repel fatties but it will help. And when I meet a girl for a drink for a first date, if she’s too fat, sometimes I’ll just leave and sometimes I’ll invite her to the gym. Not necessarily that night but in two days or whenever. Their reactions are funny. Especially the ones who say, “Are you saying I’m fat?” Easy response: “I’m saying I’m going to the gym and you should come.”

In a position of strength, a guy can say, “I want you to go find a man who will give you a family. In the meantime, if you want to keep having fun with me, do it. If you find a guy and things don’t work out and you want a break, text me.”

Sometimes she will. Chicks can be like comets, swinging into a guy’s solar system for a couple weeks at a time.

I also have weird ethics. I think women in the 29 – 40 age range who genuinely want children should be released by guys who catch them and who have investment from those women. This essay only applies to a guy with a woman who is invested. If she’s not invested it doesn’t count.

If a guy’s game is strong and he’s in the secret society, he won’t have trouble moving on to the next woman. But in my ethical inversion, I like sleeping with chicks who have boyfriends or husbands (now you can see why I don’t talk about the deepest shit with people I know). Not even swingers or poly people will admit that kind of thing. I think humans are ill-equipped for long-term monogamy and that if she’s available for seduction, I want me in her instead of some other guy swooping in. Among humans, women are the guardians of sex, men are the guardians of commitment. Feminism tries to obscure that basic fact, but it is true.

Next post up should continue the non-monogamy theme. It’s the one I keep mentioning, about how sex clubs layer on top of conventional game. In my view, for the right man they are a powerful tool, but I don’t think I’ve seen any active game guys writing about them.

Addition: “I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life”  is a case study of a woman who fails to realize that family matters more than partying. I’ve dated and f**ked women like her. She is the sort of woman who a guy not interested family should catch & release.

Attention is the only tool modern men have

Let’s say a girl is acting bitchy,” is a good post.

“When having a boundary crossed actually means you’ll walk out, and you have zero tolerance for bullshit, it will show up as soon as the micro transgressions happen. This permeates the whole thing since your very first moment.”

The only real tool modern men have at their disposal is attention. You either give attention or withdraw it. That’s really it, and the rest is commentary, except maybe for deciding when, where, why, and how to give or withdraw attention. When a guy blows up some girl’s phone, he’s dissipating one of the only (or the only) tool(s) he has. Where and how he directs his attention is the fundamental of modern game.

A wonderful book by David Barash, Out of Eden: The Surprising Consequences of Polygamy, lists all the tools men used to have to enforce monogamy. They could kill their wife’s lover… seriously, that used to be legal in many parts of the United States… “Until the 1970s, it was entirely legal in several states for a husband to kill his wife’s lover if he caught them in flagrante.” Today, if your wife takes a lover and has his kid and then divorces you, she still gets your money and child support. Men had physical force. They had the weight of society enforcing monogamy, and, back then, women would be ashamed for breaking up their marriage. “Historically, in many cultures, the murder of an adulterous wife and/or her lover has not only been condoned but encouraged.”

Abandoned women used to face big consequences, unlike today, when most women leave the moment they think they can get a better guy, and then are rewarded with cash and prizes by the Orwellianly named “family court” system. Once upon a time, “The bottom line: male lethality is unquestionably real, especially in the context of sexual competition, and even more when the competition is immediate and involves direct access to a man’s sexual ‘rights’ and ‘property,’ which is to say, women.”

Personally I prefer the system we have now, which doesn’t entail nearly as much death or non-consensual, but the system today also tells people monogamy doesn’t work and it’s great to f**k around.

It is pretty much a cross cultural universal that men intimidate their spouses to refrain from extramarital sex, punishing them—often severely and not uncommonly, lethally—should they do so.

That’s Professor Barash too. Obviously that’s not true today (and nor am I advocating that it be true), but imagine what a society devoted to working towards monogamy would look like.

In the contemporary world, men don’t have violence or social censure as an option… we have nothing but attention itself. When you give a woman attention, you reinforce whatever behavior she is offering. When you withdraw attention, you convey your displeasure with that behavior.

This is also why I think most men should not use most social media, or minimize use, cause social media gives women attention and validation that is unlikely to lead to sex. A woman loves attention almost as much as a man loves sex; giving too much to her is an easy way to kill her attraction to you. Whatever is scarce is valuable. Offer too much attention and you will demonstrate that your attention is low value. High-value men are too busy building companies, making art, seducing women, and having peak experiences to offer attention, especially lame digital attention, to women who do not reciprocate their attention appropriately. High-value men are also not spending a lot of time on social media because they are in the real world, doing things, making things, building things, and having sex. If a woman is responsive online but doesn’t want to meet in person, then you’re not moving towards sex and can let her go.

It’s not impossible to use social media well, but it’s never or pretty much never a good idea to “like” women’s photos and statutes. Yet I see guys do this all the time. As more people exist primarily in the fake digital space, guys who can drive interactions in the real world will become more and more valuable.

When a woman crosses a boundary, withdraw attention. Better yet, give attention to other, better behaved women. Guys with options are very different than guys without. Girls know you have options when you shut the fuck up.

“Shutting the fuck up.” No one talks about this in today’s verbal diarrhea culture, but because no one talks about it or does it, it’s valuable.

Chicks also know you’re high value when you stop giving them attention and start directing your attention in the only places you should: your skills, your life, the women who are having actual sex with you.

Excessive texting is a waste of attention. Texting should be focused on your next meeting. You are a busy man, as I wrote above. Focus your attention on making real-life things happen. You can do a little bit of texting, that’s fine, but always be focused on making texting an unimportant adjunct to your real life. Today, this will also set you apart from other guys. Less is more, in most circumstances.

Social media is another form of attention, and most guys misuse it. Social media is an attractive nuisance. It’s attractive, because guys imagine that, if they can just get a good enough Instagram feed, hot chicks will message them for hookups. For the vast majority of guys, this will never happen. The vast majority of guys are better off learning cold approach pickup, improving themselves, improving their delivery, etc. But social media is easy and can be done without leaving the apartment. For inexperienced guys, social media takes the perceived sting out of real-world rejection. So the temptation is to take the way that seems easy (social media) but leads nowhere, instead of the way that at first seems hard (cold approach pickup, developing an attractive life) that leads somewhere.

Overall, lots of women screw around, but they’re much more secretive about it than men are. “DNA fingerprinting has recently revealed that among many species, including Homo Sapiens, females are more inclined to sexual variety than had previously been thought: that is, to polyandry.” If she’s inclined that way, you need to be ready for it. Jealousy exists because it’s useful, “If women weren’t polyandrous—selected to engage, on occasion, in sexual relationships with more than one male—then men wouldn’t be disposed to violent mate guarding in the first place.” Today, we’ve got to be diligent about not wasting our scarce attention resources on chicks who haven’t earned them.

What’s with guys who are with considerably uglier women? [FR?]

Like I said, Bike Girl and I went to a friend’s sex party last night, and it was fantastic. I did notice one thing: three guys in pretty good shape escorting women considerably fatter and uglier than ones those guys should’ve been with. I looked at the guys with pity but also curiosity: if you see one severely mismatched couple, that’s normal. Three, though, all with relatively more attractive men, is weird. Whenever you see a guy with a fat chick, think to yourself, “this is why game matters.”

One of the fat chicks was seriously interested in us, and while fucking her probably would’ve been better than a sea anemone, I wasn’t interested.

When I’m around fat chicks I have a habit of becoming a gym bore and discuss squat mechanics in detail. Probably I should be subtler, but fuck it.

Three solidly hot girls were there: Bike Girl and two others. One was a stunner in her 20s, a blonde high 8 in my view, and her and her new boyfriend are just getting into the scene. After round one I brought out some massage oil to use on Bike Girl. I caught the other couple’s eyes and waved them over, then offered supposed massage tips. The other guy and I spent time massaging the girls we brought, then we switched girls, and the massages acted as foreplay and led smoothly into fucking.

Overall it was a great experience, although Bike Girl expressed reservations on the way home because she says she doesn’t like fucking strangers. I reassured her that what we’d done was fun, natural, and okay. That is a component of leading and to be expected among many girls, but especially among girls who are having sexual novelty they may not be totally equipped to mentally handle. Remember that most girls don’t know what they want and are psychologically equipped to tell stories about their sexual experiences that deny their own agency. Chicks rely on guys to calibrate their internal psychological levels. If you aren’t strong enough to do that you’re going to have a lot of wayward unhappy girls in your life.

I think what happened doesn’t even qualify as “game.” It was being in the right place at the right with the right energy and letting a thing happen. The other couple wanted what they wanted and got it. Most couples aren’t good at leading either, so someone has to be willing to put themselves out there and that someone turned out to be me.

I have a longer post about how chicks deny their own sexual agency coming up.

Happy New Year! If you’re a guy in a stagnant relationship with a fat chick, this is the time to make new plans. If you’re a fat guy yourself, this is the year to quit sugar and hit the gym. It’s possible to use game to overcome body deficiencies but boy is it hard.

Most people are too lazy to make changes, which is why I have the experiences I’ve had and most guys don’t have those experiences.

New Year’s Eve

“My friend is having a New Year’s party. Maybe we should go to that instead.”

“Have you been to his parties before?”

“Yeah.”

“What’s it like?”

“It’s fun.”

“Is it a dozen people standing around drinking and awkwardly eyeing each other up, only to have none of them go home with each other at the end?”

“Haha.”

“Like I said, we can go to the sex party, where instead of people wondering what everyone looks like naked, they can find out for themselves. You’ve liked the things we’ve gone to, right?”

“Um, yeah.”

“Right. So I have to give them money towards the hotel, so if we’re going to agree to do this, we need to do this.”

“Okay. I feel bad because usually I hang out with [the usual friends.]”

“That’s okay. I don’t think your friends are down for this, but ‘Melissa’ might be. You can talk to her about it if you want.”

“Haha, okay.”

This is something like “soft leadership:” redirecting the energy of the conversation toward the right end. I also HATE most NYE parties, because they are either in loud, overpriced clubs/bars or they’re groups of people standing around holding champagne wondering where their lives are going. The best parties, are usually the ones not advertised… and often not the ones in which everyone keeps on their clothes.

You don’t get to the best places by doing what everyone else does. You get to better places by working smarter and harder than other people, and then exploiting market inefficiencies. Sometimes that means doing nothing. It means saying no and NOT doing what everyone else does. Some of my best NYEs have been alone or with one person. The worst have been in large crowds and being alone in the mass.

This kind of thing (group sex) isn’t for everyone (I know that and get feedback from guys who think group sex is disgusting. Fine with me. Lots of girls fantasize about it. I have a longer post about RP and it… for now this post covers some of the material). But I find it much more satisfying and interesting than typical NYE status jockeying.

Like a lot of girls, Bike Girl has two – three actual friends and a bunch of people she sometimes hangs out with who are her “friends.” Those straight male “friends” want to nail her, except for one guy who is enough of a player to not care much. Also like most girls, she has no idea what she really wants and thus will conform to the people she’s around.

When I was younger I was hesitant to lead because I didn’t want to be the boss or boss people around. Now I realize that I’d picked up poor notions of leadership from the larger culture. Leadership is much subtler and it means being willing to make things happen, being willing to negotiate, and perhaps most importantly having a direction to go.

Most people have no direction, so them leading anywhere is impossible.

“Come on, let’s do x,” is a powerful force. Sometimes, “x” is “sex parties.”

The perils of younger women

Last night I slept with a woman I first met a while ago, from this story. We met when she was on a bad date (I’ve actually picked up a couple women this way). She was in her early 40s, still very lithe, but no honest guy prefers a woman in her early 40s to a woman in her 20s, all else being equal, for sex. There are obviously fatties in their 20s and some women are still cute in their 40s, but on average the 2o-something wins.

Between the last time I saw her and now, this woman got in a semi-serious relationship with another guy and the relationship fizzled, so she sent a “how are you?” feeler text to me, we got drinks, and then the usual.

But I wasn’t that excited about her. Bike Girl is in her 20s and man, after getting used to an attractive woman in her 20s, going back to a 40+ woman is hard. Harder than it should be. Objectively this one is still attractive. If I’d not had sex for a week, I’m sure I’d have been all over her. But with Bike Girl eager for sex even more often than I am, I just didn’t have the umph necessary to make it work, and I think lithe former dancer knew as much.

This one also has something sad about her. She was in a 10+ year relationship and it was never the “right time” to have kids. Reading between the lines, I think she just got bored of her guy, and vice-versa. She basically blew her fertility window on nothing. I meet a lot of women like this. They usually have one LTR that “didn’t work out” or some similar female nonsense and deeply regret not having kids. Or they’re furiously trying to find a guy to have kids with, but they’re finding that their whole dating market structure changed a lot, without them really noticing, between 22 and 35. None have read an older article, “Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough,” because they’re too busy with Cosmo or whatever other dumb shit most women read.

Enough of that. The last ten or so cold approaches I’ve done (a couple on the street, one in a grocery store, a couple in coffee shops) have gone nowhere. A couple of weak numbers. I may lack the necessary intent. And the time.

Bike Girl is also getting more comfortable with non-monogamy. We had the foursome, and soon we’re going to try a MFM threeway with my “threesome buddy.” He’s into the non-monogamy swinging community and we’ve done this many times before. Bike Girl is apprehensive, but in a cute way. She says she’s never met anyone like me before, but I tell her, truthfully, that she likely has, but without recognizing it.

I do think I’m making her a little too insecure for non-monogamy.

Of course, it’s also possible that she’s seeing someone on the side and not telling me. I learned a long time ago that there is no such thing as “not that kind of girl.” Or if there is, I (and men in general) can’t reliably distinguish between “not that kind of girl” and “that kind of girl.”

Girls are also experts at compartmentalizing. Most guys don’t know this or don’t want to know it. They prefer a “purity” fantasy. Ha.

Haha.

I started this post about the older woman and almost immediately shifted it to being about other women, so I suppose that’s all I need to know about that.

“The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures”

I was listening to and nominally participating in an inane female conversation about social media, and two women were talking about Instagram and the unwritten “rules” about posting to Instagram. At one point I just interjected and said, “The only guys who like your pictures are the ones you don’t want to like your pictures.”

They agreed that I “got it.” One asked me if I have Instagram, and I truthfully said that I have an account but don’t use it. For some reason a lot of chicks like to tell me about the pictures of whatever thing they did and will then sign me up to follow them on Instagram. Fine with me, but I don’t interact or look at it.

I told them that if they want to find higher-quality guys, they should spend less time on social media and more time in the real world. One agreed and one argued that social media was “fun” and “important.” There was nothing to argue again because the point is so inane.

For guys, liking a woman’s social media posts is just a demonstration of lower value. Women know this yet many guys do it anyway. Women who post pictures of themselves in pretty addresses or bikinis get endless waves of validation and attention, but deep inside the women themselves know that the attention is meaningless.

Online and off, less is often more. I do use some Facebook and WhatsApp, but for me the main purpose is to focus on meeting up. Any woman you can’t get on a date might as well be invisible to you.

Social media is deceptive because it can make a guy think he’s making progress when in actuality he is either not making progress or is actively moving himself back. Generic likes and “so hot” comments just convey thirst.

I did tell those two girls that my most interesting social media is anonymous and NSFW, which is true and intrigued them, but I refused to give specifics. Holding back is sometimes better than spewing out.

I have a bunch of other stories to write, including one about Bike Girl’s first foursome, with a couple who I’ve known for a while from the sex-club scene. I also have a half-written post about swinging and non-monogamy for RP guys.

This is a continuation of my points in “Men, game, and social media strategies.” In my view, guys are well-served by minimal interactions on social media.

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.

 

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. Many guys will micro-analyze an encounter or attempt with an outcome that the girl had already decided, because she wasn’t available for whatever reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you get zero traction with a hundred women something’s 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.

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

Chicks who have a coherent plan that they genuinely want, and then execute it, will try to filter players, and they’re 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. It can shift based on where they are in their cycle. Guys who want casual sex are looking for girls who have shifted into an openness for casual sex, even though their superficial long-term plan might be “marriage with a sweet guy.” Guys want to be that two-days-later guy.

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

Most girls are neither looking for pure 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.

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

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