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.

Game or relationship “levels:” Different for men and women

There are different “levels” of game/relationship skills, each with its distinct but overlapping characteristics.

Meeting/getting laid: This is the stage most game guys live in: for guys, it’s often a struggle just to meet chicks and get laid. Most guys need to up their sex appeal, social skills, fashion, etc. Some guys are also living in bad environments (rural areas, suburbs). Most chicks don’t talk much about this, as it’s not important to height-weight proportionate chicks in their teens, 20s, or 30s. For chicks it’s not hard to get laid, even by guys who are +2 or +3 in sexual market value (SMV). Chicks would do better if they opened more guys, but that’s like telling the average barista they should just move to Silicon Valley and become a programmer to improve their life. The advice will be relevant to like 1/100 people.

Short-term relationships: These are usually easy as the honeymoon effect is strong and for that reason there is not much to say here. Lust and novelty maintains the relationship.

Medium-term relationships: These probably last from two months to two years. I have written a lot about how to manage expectations with these chicks. Guys who want novelty but want to retain chicks find this stage difficult.

Chicks who write about medium-term relationships are almost always writing about how to get this relationship into the long-term relationship. Most dating advice by and for chicks lives in this space and later. Most dating advice by and for guys lives in the meeting- and short-term space. For most chicks, just showing up or logging online is sufficient to get laid. But for most chicks who have decided to invest heavily in a guy, this is one of the hardest stages. Many guys begin to feel the call of the wild again after 100 or 200+ bangs w/ a particular girl. Dating power shifts to guys after sex and in this phase.

Long-term relationships (without kids): I don’t get why most guys would want to be in a very long-term, monogamous relationship with a woman unless there are kids involved, but some guys do this. The big problem for both men and women is boredom. For financially dysfunctional people, the big problem may remain daily living. Not much chick advice lives here.

Long-term relationships with kids: This is another place where lots of dating and life advice exists for both guys and chicks. It’s hard to do successfully. Competing interests are common.

A lot of man advice focuses on stages one and two. A lot of chick advice focuses on stages three and later. Does it seem like men and women are having different conversations around dating, relationships, and sex? That’s because we often are. I wrote “Kids, the player, and the Red Pill: Comprehensive statement” to offer some thinking to guys who are age 30+ and who are doing well in stages one and two. Guys online who do well in stages one and two seem to stop writing, as I will likely do.

Game helps the most at stages one and two. It obviously helps in the later stages, but the big boost is stages one and two. I’ve read players who say that game gets you in the door, but then you have to try living in the house. Once you are regularly tagging a chick, she is going to start to see who you really are, what really drives you, what you do when you’re sexually satiated, what your family constellation is like, etc.

Kids, the player, and the Red Pill: Comprehensive statement

I don’t have good answers or solutions to questions around how players who wants kids, should go about having them (and I think most guys should have kids… MOST is not ALL, so you may be an exception). I’m skeptical of the “Just do THIS, bro” stories I see, most of which reduce to a couple scenarios:

  • “Just marry the RIGHT woman:” while screening women is helpful, it is not possible to know how someone will evolve three years, five years, ten years later. You are still gambling when you marry a woman.
  • “Just marry and hope for the best.” This is a good way to lose half your assets, and to pay alimony in addition to child support.
  • “Just have a kid with a woman in a non-committed relationship and keep your harem going.” Most women won’t agree to this. In an age of reliable birth control and abortion, she is not likely to go for this by accident. This scenario is not impossible, just not common.
  • “Just have a kid and then leave the woman.” This is very bad for the kid and also hard to set up and execute.

In my view, guys in their teens, 20s, and early 30s need to have experience with a wide array of women BEFORE they attempt to set up a family.

Most women are ill-suited to relationships and family and most modern women under the age of 27/28 are not actually ready to have kids, even if they think they are. Many, conceivably most, women who have kids younger than that age stay with the father for a couple years, then divorce / leave him for one last big ride. It also seems that most guys comply with female demands and just wander into marriage because they don’t think they can get another girl; while this is a terrible reason to marry, it’s also super common. I encourage you NOT to sleepwalk into marriage. One way to know whether you should stay with a woman is to ask yourself, “Can I get another woman at least as good as this one if I want to?” If the honest answer is “Yes,” then you should consider staying with her. Only stay with her if you have options. If you don’t have options, you need to up your value and game.

Despite all the pleasures of being a player (it has NEVER been a better time to be a player, despite what you hear sometimes online), I think most guys eventually want kids. Typically this seems to happen around age 35 – 40. A guy who has been in the game for 5 – 10 years often tires of it… while f**king hot chicks never gets old, at least for me, it can get repetitive and unsatisfying, for lack of a better term. Many guys come to yearn for something more substantial in their lives than slagging randoms until the point they no longer can. If you’re a committed player for life, that’s fine, this is not for you and I wish you good luck in your endeavors. This is for guys who start thinking beyond the next bang. I spent a long time thinking about the next bang, so, again, I’m not opposed to that view… but I think I’m growing away from it.

Modern marriage doesn’t work because it’s a high-risk contract with little reward for the guy. In our society we link sexuality tightly with raising children. Is it possible to separate those two, despite the way marriage co-mingles them? To have a kid, but also to have other partners, consensually? It seems that very few people think about this, let alone try it. Yet many people end up doing it: they just marry, have kids, then have an acrimonious divorce, which is in effect a parturition of sexuality and child rearing. What if you skip the acrimony and the false till-death-do-us-part thing? I don’t see how people can make till-death-do-us-part promises with a straight face today, despite the regularity with which people do just that.

I’m interested in co-parenting as an alternative. Very few women have heard of co-parenting, though. The conversation about co-parenting is just getting started, and it’s more common than it was ten years ago.

It’s also apparent that most sexual relationships lose their sexual component over time, and that’s part of the reason I’m interested in consensual non-monogamy. Consensual non-monogamy is hard, and many people are inclined to succumb to the power and lure of “new relationship energy” (NRE), instead of investing in their previous relationship(s), which they have already hedonically adapted to.

I’ve been talking more w/ women (and some men) about co-parenting, since, it’s clear that the “we’re going to put our entire sexual, economic, and child-raising eggs in one basket” system hasn’t been working very well for decades. Is it possible or conceivable that we can have a consensual, intelligent co-parenting system instead? It doesn’t seem totally impossible to me, and some people are (finally) talking about this, which in my view is long overdue.

I wonder if more couples would work better w/ something like a child-raising and care contract. A lot of the successful couples I see seem to either be post-sex (weird to me, but whatever), or have quiet side arrangements. Problem for guys is that quiet side arrangements are much easier for women to arrange than guys to arrange. Just like a woman who writes on a dating app, “In a relationship and looking for something casual” will be inundated with sex requests while a guy who does the same will… not be. That’s why I’m more fond of the sex club situation, where extremely direct reciprocation is the norm.

Overall, I just don’t think humans are good at long-term monogamy. Even in the days after the Industrial Revolution and before reliable birth control, the likelihood of relentless, back-breaking labor and the possibility of early death means that it’s possible not that many people did modern long-term monogamy.

Today, I’m envisioning something like a five-year shared-resources contract, the purpose of which is to have two kids and remain romantically entangled. Then, after, you can re-evaluate the contract and decisions. Or a contract might specify that you’re going to have kids and do 50/50 custody and not leave the metro area. We’re pretty far from having this conversation, but many people are already doing something like this, if you look at the divorce rate.

Realistically, it is also very difficult if not impossible for most guys to have very small kids and be anything like a player. Well, maybe if you have the money to hire a full-time nanny or something like that, but apart from corner/edge cases it’s not going to happen, if you’re also dealing with kid stuff. The people who think otherwise either haven’t been in the situation or just abandon Mom/kid, which I also think is bad. For a lot of people who have two kids two years apart, they spend six years in “kid world” dealing with very small kids. Some have families who assume part of the burden. Some pay for child care. Some do both. Many just work their way through it. I recommend buying kettlebells and doing kettlebell workouts.

It is possible to have somewhat older kids, when they are more autonomous, and split time w/ the Mom and be a player. Most guys just don’t do this, or can’t.

I’m interested in co-parenting because it seems obvious to me that a) traditional marriage doesn’t work but all that b) having kids is important and meaningful. How do you square that circle?

For a guy who makes a really large amount of money, it’s possible to deal with “child” support and the family-law system. It could also conceivably be possible to hire nannies, etc. and still be a player. I’m saying “possible” because I don’t think I know anyone who’s done it (though I’m not sure I know any true players anyway). For most people, kids, especially when young, just take a lot of time and attention, in a way that’s not very compatible with sleeping around.

I mentioned that many guys eventually get bored with being a player. I think we have been psychologically selected in part for having and being around kids, and it is very hard to get over our evolved psychology. The “grandmother hypothesis” asks if women experience menopause and cease reproduction, yet keep living for decades after, as an evolutionary adaptation to help their daughters’s grandchildren. While older men may still be able to have children, it’s not obvious how often men age 50+ actually did so… men may also be psychologically primed for leadership roles and to help their grandchildren. If so, then failing to set yourself up to be able to do that may be setting yourself up for psychological disappointment.

I like citing evolutionary biology and psychology, and those fields may have implications for stage of life. We look to them as players because they provide a theoretical framework for what chicks are into. But we can also look to them for other virtues, like how to think about age and family. Many families and communities are fractured by travel for jobs and by simple social dysfunction.

If our psychologies are primed for children/grandchildren, that can explain why so many people (including guys) without kids seem pretty f**ked up and bitter. There is a mismatch between what their deep psychologies want them to do, and what they have done or are doing. That mismatch is hard to reconcile.

It seems there is also a difference between a “happy” and “meaningful” life, which many of us intuit.

Satisfying one’s needs and wants increased happiness but was largely irrelevant to meaningfulness. Happiness was largely present oriented, whereas meaningfulness involves integrating past, present, and future. For example, thinking about future and past was associated with high meaningfulness but low happiness. Happiness was linked to being a taker rather than a giver, whereas meaningfulness went with being a giver rather than a taker. Higher levels of worry, stress, and anxiety were linked to higher meaningfulness but lower happiness.

That matches my intuitive sense and what I have been trying to convey. There is some trade off between having the best immediate experience RIGHT NOW and building a life that is “meaningful,” “substantial,” choose your word here. American society tells us we are supposed to be “happy,” which sounds a little like consumerist advertising bullshit to me.

One player I know wrote,

The firm subtext I have with any girl I date now is outcome indifference. She can more or less come and go as she pleases and I am fine either way. Once you have a child I do not see how you can become anything but outcome dependent. How would you handle that loss of leverage over her behaviour?

When you have a kid, you’re very likely going to be less outcome independent with the woman, but you also have to remember that, if she wants to leave and sue you for child support… she will. That’s just a fact. But most normal women want a partner and a father for their child, so, typically a man’s leverage increases in the first few years of the child’s life, as normal women want to be subsidized financially and want their child to have a father.

You can of course find exceptions to this. The exceptions make great stories.

It’s really difficult to predict how women respond to being a parent. They seem to have all kinds of responses, many of them unpredictable. In some sense you are tied to her for the next twenty years. But, in another sense, you still have to be ready to leave, or to have her leave; the main way to be outcome independent is to be prepared, psychologically and logistically, for what will happen in the event of a split.

The negative and the positive are both parts of life. Dwell too long or too far on either, and you will not be a complete person, in my opinion; complete persons have to embrace both. I like to think that I do, though I may be deluding myself.

Functional women also try very hard to make sure they are NOT going to have a kid with a deadbeat, a lackadaisical guy, or even a player who is going to abandon them. Women who are functional today get an IUD and, even if they get pregnant by a non-investing guy, they are not going to keep the baby. Obviously, many women are dysfunctional, but I’m not convinced it’s a great idea to have a baby with a dysfunctional woman. In an era of long-acting reversible contraception, separating sex from reproduction is easy and functional women do it.

There is also a stage-of-life question to the woman or women a guy is dating. Most chicks under age 22 – 25 DO NOT CARE about your career, your intellect, etc. They are in it for the hot guys, the feels, and the excitement (mostly). Chicks who pay their own rent, often evaluate guys on other factors in addition to hotness and feelings. There is a big gap between chicks who are being heavily subsidized by parents/state (via student loans) and chicks who have to pay their own way. The latter usually get MUCH more interested in a guy’s career and intellect, as those things directly affect his ability to keep roof over head. This is much harder than many chicks realize.

This is not universal, and some 18-year-old chicks will be very intersted in earning power and some 31-year-old chicks won’t give a f**k. But it is a strong correlation. It makes sense from an evolutionary and cultural perspectives… while there is a lot of stuff in the Red Pill about how chicks’s sexual market value (SMV) is predominantly determined by looks and youth, and that’s true, it’s also overstated… especially for guys looking for a longer-term chick. A guy looking purely for hookups is all about the hotness. A guy evaluating a longer-term deal will also consider the woman’s own psychology, earning power, etc., as they become much more important in long-term mating contexts. In the modern world, a chick who is out of school and without a job is sending a terrible signal about herself, and she is signaling her dysfunction in a way that most guys with their own shit together will notice.

Furthermore, a chick’s looks will fade over time, but her good fitness / nutrition habits will slow that. Her good work habits will contribute to household finances. Her good mood/positive temper will make her a better mother. Etc. Over a 5 – 10 year relationship that includes having a family, her raw hotness is unlikely to be the most important thing about her, for most guys. Most guys likely have some minimal level of attractiveness, but once a woman has exceeded that, other factors become important in long-term contexts.

Chicks also have their own game… chicks realize early on that they are competing against other chicks, and that, if all she offers is f**king… well, lots of other chicks can and do do that effectively. Spreading her legs, bending over… it’s good, but it’s also common, especially for the high-status men women most want. So women ideally learn how to cook, at least, and ideally learn other useful skills too… most women appear to underestimate how much that can make them stand apart.

I don’t have great answers to the problems of childbearing and long-term relationships, but because this is the Internet I know I am supposed to be the God-like guru who KNOWS EVERYTHING. I am not and I don’t know everything, and some questions are unanswerable. I see that the old structures don’t work anymore and have been killed by feminism, despite the many men who are still foolhardy enough to sign the marriage contract. Almost no one is talking about the new structures (if you know someone who is, please tell me about them). So where does someone go who does want a family but also sees conventional marriage as fucked? We have to write a whole new playbook from scratch, which is pretty uncommon. Many of the suggestions I have read are either unrealistic or assume a massive amount of income/wealth, which is itself unrealistic for most people. Yes, I know the Internet has many people making $250,000/year in location-independent income, and they are willing to show you how to do it too for the low low price of $995… but that is atypical. If you genuinely have it, good for you, but most people don’t.

Chicks also go through the epicycles men do. A 35-year-old woman who just got out of an eight or ten year relationship might be ready for some hot guy casual sex. Or a 45-year-old woman for that matter. The woman I call Low-cut top girl is younger than that and didn’t have as long a relationship, but she is/was in that phase. These epi-cycles are why marriage is so foolish for most men. A woman may love a man for ten years and then leave. Why give her half your money too?

This piece has probably taken a longer time than anything else I’ve written, and it still feels very incomplete to me. The whole Red Pill world feels incomplete to me at times… I saw a smart Tweet on the subjet,

The root cause of the brain drain in the PUA industry post 2010s.

The pick up guys who are cool and intelligent stay hidden because they have professional and business reputations to maintain.

The end result is the PUAs that go public are mostly unsuccessful weirdos.

Most guys with things going for them, would have to be nuts to come out. At some point, (almost) everyone needs to change pace. From f**king tons of chicks to building a substantial contribution. From writing online to living in real life. Not everyone… but most of us.

There is also a thing in modern upper-middle-class culture called “helicopter parenting” or “snowplow parenting.” If you work with Gen Zers in the 18 – 23 age bracket you may have seen some of the results. This kind of parenting is crazy, time-intensive, and leads to neurotic parenting and kids. Most amusingly, it does not work. How your kid turns out is largely not up to the parent, within reason. Jocko Willink has said that he lets his kids fail (in non-physically threatening ways). It’s important to know the strategic mission that the family is trying to accomplish. A lot of contemporary upper-middle-class parenting is about doing everything for the kid, destroying the adult’s life and not letting the kid develop. Don’t do this, although your peers might be doing it.

So, like I said at the beginning, I don’t have a final answer and am suspicious of those who claim to, and I think that consensual co-parenting is a smart route, but most chicks are not going to go for it both because of cultural conditioning around marriage and because the marriage contract gives them an option on the guy’s financial resources. Chicks are also driven to find a guy they think is higher than them on the social totem pole. But there is a limit on how many guys are up there, so a lot of chicks end up becoming cat ladies instead of having families. Sad, but that is modern society. Chicks don’t learn femininity and then are surprised guys don’t respond to them… guys don’t learn masculinity and then are surprised when chicks don’t respond to them. The chicks who learn femininity aren’t online feminists… the guys who learn masculinity aren’t online PUAs. You see through the system, then you figure out who and what you really are. You figure out the final answers given by gurus are wrong or incomplete. You see that there is only the struggle. Eventually all of us lose the struggle and die… to live is to struggle.

Why romantic rejection stings: evolved psychology

Humans spent most of our evolutionary history in small bands and/or villages of 30 – 150 people; think about that ancestral environment for a minute: in it, there were likely only a handful of unattached, fecund women at any given time, all of them enmeshed in family kinship ties that had to be navigated by any guy who wants a shot at their p***y. In that environment, making a play for a chick and losing might be severely damaging or even fatal to a guy’s reproductive prospects; a guy should experience a severe psychological penalty if he fails. All of his people are probably going to learn of his failure, and failure may lead to a failure cascade. Fail hard enough and your genes wash out of the gene pool.

Contrast that with today (you can probably see where I’m going): in high schools or colleges, a guy may be surrounded by dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of attractive prime-age women. In big cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or London, that number rises to the hundreds of thousands. Any particular rejection shouldn’t matter, yet to many of us it does, to the point that fear of rejection inhibits the attempt. In some circumstances, circumspection is still desirable: a lot of high school and college chicks are super into a guy’s social network and standing, which is why cold approach pickup is often undesirable in these environments… even though most high school and college guys should be bolder than they are and risk/accept more rejection.

Today, most women have minimal romantic oversight by their kin, particularly for short-term mating and after the high-school period. Women make their own sexual decisions. For guys living in big cities, any particular rejection is meaningless, yet it still stings. I think that’s our evolved response to sexual rejection, which is maladaptive in most modern situations. If she says no, move on to the next one. Practice hitting on women like you’d practice any other skill. If a guy works on his value, value delivery mechanism, and environment, he will likely improve. But in hitting on chicks and accepting their sometimes-cruel rejection, he may be pushing against his own psychology, and that is difficult. I want to acknowledge that it is difficult. Men and women have overlapping but distinct sexual strategies, which means that both sexes will struggle, just in different ways. The way to minimize struggle is to be ultra-high value (unlikely) or give up (unsatisfying). The rest of us must face the dragon.

It’s useful to try and overcome some emotional responses with rational thought. Useful, but difficult, and likely imperfect. I don’t expect to completely overcome emotional responses, but I wish to try, and, in my life, the effort to think through my feelings has been rewarded. Your first feeling toward a situation or thing is often wrong.

Understanding our evolved psychology is important for understanding how to live today. In ancestral times, a sweet tooth was adaptive and helped guide us towards edible fruits and honey, both of which were likely important to survival. Today, industrial agricultural can deliver sugar in quantities totally foreign to evolutionary times, leading to obesity, diabetes, etc. Almost everyone who quits sugar gets great results. Standing apart from the herd, though, is hard, and we see the results of those who can’t stand out (fat people) all around us. The modern information environment may also be bad for us, attempting to generate fake tribalism and bullshit outrage because both are extremely attractive, even if they’re bad for us. We should be reading more books and fewer anger-inducing, polarizing media articles.

I write about the ailments of sugar and the pain of rejection not because I am beyond them, but because I am not. I still struggle with both, even as I try to build habits that minimize the struggle, or allow me to win. I’m not 100% successful. Rejection still annoys me at times. I miss chicks I ought to open. I try to re-center myself by asking, “Why am I responding this way? What is the good response? What would Marcus Aurelius do, besides conquer Gaul?” We live for only a short while. We should try to do it as best we can.

I’m writing this today because I believe I’m both rejecting and being rejected this weekend. Plus, I read an incredible Red Pill account by an anthropologist, Napoleon Chagnon, who perseveres through both the tribe he studies and the Marxist-indoctrinated colleagues who can’t conceive of a world outside their narrow ideological bubble. The world rarely confirms to an ideology. We try to make it so at our own peril.

Two possible paths forward: Hedonistic partying vs children

I realized something else about Ms. Slav: I’m tempted by her because I think that, together, we could do a lot to build up the non-monogamous community and tell a lot of people about non-monogamy; that sounds grandiose, but hear me out. Like I wrote in this other post, you have to be cool / have status first. IMO I have reasonable status and Ms. Slav combines being young and hot with unusual intelligence and a total love of non-monogamy, sex clubs, group sex, etc. So much so that I was a little bit confused when I first brought her into the scene… most chicks need a fair amount of coaxing, coaching, help, etc. Ms. Slav just ran straight in, blew right past me, and is deep in.

Already, some of the non-monogamous dating we’ve done has been intense. Ms. Slav is a true bisexual, it seems, and likes to dominate women… a very powerful combination, since most women are submissive and reactive, so, when two bisexual women get together, they often fizzle because neither one will start things up… chicks are used to guys leading. That is why many bi chicks like couple-to-couple dating. The guys will guide the chicks into the hookup, which the chicks can’t manage on their own. One theme game guys learn is that a lot of chicks have trouble doing things without guidance/motivation/external stimuli… that may be why chicks do well in school and then don’t make it to the very top of workplaces, since top jobs demand autonomy and internal motivation.

Peter Thiel says that groups can get things done that individuals cannot. He is writing about companies. But that is true of other kinds of organizations, groups, and ideas too. We’re experiencing a feminist hellscape because lots of small groups of feminists got together in the 60s and 70s to figure out how they can extract more value from men, and they largely succeeded (their narrative is somewhat different than the one I have just presented, although the results are the same). I think I can do something similar with Ms. Slav… because she is hot, smart, and uninhibited, we could do a LOT of community-building in a way that I have not seen in other chicks.

Most people are only interested in their immediate needs and surroundings. Most guys who start to read the pickup literature, never do anything with it… the ones who begin practicing, most don’t write about it… the ones who write, most give up quickly… the ones who don’t, most don’t write books that might transcend their blogs… the number of guys who go beyond all that, is quite small. And usually they find themselves embedded in a group of some kind. One possible mistake I have made is not writing online sooner, although this might not have been a mistake, as I was focused on work and other matters and correctly anticipated that writing online could be a huge time sink with zero financial payoff. That anticipation has been totally correct. Importantly, though, Ms. Slav and I could built a large non-monogamy scene together, especially using couple-to-couple dating as an intake mode. Religious lunatics know that nothing beats person-to-person pitches… so do salesmen… real change happens one person at a time, ideally face-to-face. I am tempted by doing that kind of messianic zeal with Ms. Slav. I think she would go for it. I think she has the attributes for it.

So I realized that I’m tempted by her not just for the usual reasons, but because she could be a powerful catalyst for showing other people the way. I have helped to host parties before… the two of us together could be a powerful locus for parties. I’m better organized than she is, not surprisingly, but she also LOVES non-monogamy like no other chick I’ve met, even Libido Girl. Or I should say, “Like no other hot chick I’ve met.” There are some desperate fat chicks who are eager to flaunt their sex positivity. Most chicks will not make crude propositions and come-ons to me, at least before first sex… but low chicks, like 5s and below, sometimes will. It is their only potential source of value, so they use it. Not interesting to me, but enough guys must be willing to take the zero-effort lay for it to work. And fat chicks, older chicks, chicks who aren’t very sexy… like attracts like, which I’ve been talking about too, so they typically can’t host good parties. You have to have a core nucleus of sexy chicks and cool guys to make a party work. Take away the sexy chicks, and the whole thing falls apart.

One sexy chick who can attract and retain other sexy chicks, and you have a potential core/nucleus for a larger group. I have seen this thing sort of start before… but the chicks I’ve been with have never had the right combination of personality, IQ, and desire. The typical chick still fundamentally wants a firm, one-on-one relationship with a cool guy, while the other things are secondary to that primary relationship. Very few chicks think bigger than themselves and their immediate surroundings. That’s true of some guys, too, but I’m not dating guys so I don’t give a f**k about that in these circumstances.

So yeah. I think that’s why I’m stuck on this point. I have a pretty clear question, or set of questions to answer… one way is to ease off the non-monogamy, group-sex thing, and work toward having another kid. The other way is to join w/ Ms. Slav and go ALL. THE. WAY. To make the scene really happen. To leverage Feeld and other tools to meet a lot of people and to build a larger community.

If I had met Ms. Slav five years ago I think I would be doing this, or would have done this. Today, though, I feel my desire is not the same, and I am not as interested in building this kind of thing, compared to five years ago. I also recognize that my own desires seem to be shifting.

The trade-off is that doing this with Ms. Slav is not very compatible w/ having another kid. If you are going to comment and tell me how it is compatible w/ kids… please just stop, unless maybe you have had kids of your own… what people believe in theory is so far from what happens in practice, that I don’t want to hear it. Sorry.

Practically every guy on the Internet has some chick who is “not like” the other chicks… Ms. Slav is really not like other chicks. She somewhat knows, I know it.

Low-cut top girl asks if I am a “fuckboy”

Got a text the day after our last session from Low-cut top girl saying, “Hey, I have to ask you this are you a fuckboy?” For context, I had sent her my typical “Good seeing you yesterday” text, and she replied saying she had a great time, then a couple hours later she sent that text. I laughed out loud when I read it and decided to ignore it for about 24 hours, in keeping with typical texting practice that focuses on logistics and retaining my own ability to concentrate.

I replied to her “I don’t know what that means.” In the same text, I invited her over, offering dates and times (covering logistics). She resisted at first saying that it’s important for her to know, and I said I’m not a big texting person and that we can talk in person. She agreed. In person I can gently probe what she means. I pretty much know… and that’s okay. I think I’m going to talk more about being sex positive and invite her to a club. I have lost chicks at points like this… while the seduction community is full of good responses to accusations of being a player, in reality girls who are mentally healthy and want a significant, one-on-one relationship are not going to hang around very long with a guy who isn’t going to give it to her.

You can increase the probability of retaining her with a good response, and I have a bunch, but you cannot guarantee it. I may be too indifferent with this one… I have a lot going on at the moment, more than I really want/need, so that makes it easy to be blasé, which is another word for “abundance mentality.” It’s also interesting that girls like the term “fuckboy” more than “player” now. I think.

This kind of conversation has gone both ways for me. I can tell Low-cut top girl is extremely interested because of how much she texts me, and she seems bothered that I don’t reply immediately most of the time. Attention is the only tool men have and I gave her a copy of Deep Work. She seemed to think that being given a book is weird. She seems to be continually thrown off balance by me. She also seems super basic, and to have had her one big relationship with a super basic guy. I still wish she were just a little bit hotter. She seems like a bad candidate for anything long term, as she is one of these girls who fancies herself as very intelligent when she is in fact not, and she seems to have had limited exposure to really intelligent people. It’s okay to not be that bright and understand that… it is bad to think you’re up there and not be. Being basic / average and owning that is fine… being basic / average and pretending you’re not, can be kind of annoying. I don’t say anything about that directly to her, as there’s no need, but I can feel it, and I think she can feel it. She has not read enough to know anything and hasn’t had nearly as much life experience as she thinks, so she is guided by her feelings and by random, anecdotal evidence, and mistakes that for wisdom. Not a super common set of characteristics, but I have seen it before.

The younger the girl, in my experience, the more desperately she wants rapid text replies, and the stranger she finds my texting habits. That’s okay with me, as I want to set frame appropriately and not be beholden to a flighty chick’s random notions and urges.

This post sounds more negative than it should. Low-cut top girl is mostly pleasant to be around and she obeys me sexually. I find her more entertaining than not, but I also know that girls who are entertaining because of their ignorance can become annoying for the same reason later. I feel like most of her challenges I have already seen from other girls, almost like she is just a Markov chain automated text generator spitting out typical female nonsense. Overall I am enjoying the sex with her, so I should probably shut up and enjoy the ride.

How do you avoid the Markov chain text generator feel? Learn a lot and try your best to think for yourself. Most chicks, unfortunately, do neither. Ms. Slav, does both pretty well, and that is part of the reason she is more interesting to be around than most chicks. Most guys don’t do this very well either… they select conversation topics from the fields SPORTS, WORK, or VIDEO GAMES. Or FAMILY, if they have one. Then they are surprised when chicks find them boring, or when other guys find them boring.

Overall, Low-cut top girl’s question at this stage is likely a form of comfort test, a subject that doesn’t get much play online because I think most guys never reach this stage.