Life as a one-way function

In the later seasons of MAD MEN, Don gets a hot secretary, Megan, and then up and promptly marries her.[1] Whether this is a good or poor idea is left up to the reader, but Megan wants to be an actress, like so many hot chicks who crave attention, and Don sets her up to be a copywriter, then an actress, and, because this is TV, she succeeds: Don Draper magic works. Megan’s “career” suddenly becomes important. She and Don plan on moving to LA for her acting career. Don later decides he can’t go, but that Megan should go anyway. She becomes a glamorous LA woman. When Don arrives in LA, he doesn’t fit in with her life any more; she’s outgrown him, or grown in a direction orthogonal to him. In one of their last real interactions, she sets up a threesome for him, but it’s a melancholy, goodbye threesome, not a fun, life-affirming threesome. “Enjoy it,” Megan seems to be saying, “because we’re done, and this is a parting gift.”

Don thinks he’s going to show up in LA and Megan is going to be his, like she was in NYC… but she’s not his, not anymore. She’s not the girl, the secretary, he first met. You can’t turn a famous actress back into a secretary just hitting the big city for the first time, not when you have made her into something impossible to achieve for most women. In programming we call those “one-way functions:” easy to compute but difficult or impossible to reverse (without them, all you crypto HODLers would be hosed). Turning a secretary into a famous actress is a one-way function: she’ll never be the same, even though Don would like her to be. He can’t swoop in and have “her” again. He’ll never be the same in her eyes, because she’s changed… and been exposed to numerous high-status men. Don can have sex with her, but she’s become an actress, and the sex is sex, not her life. Sophistication goes up, rarely down. 

The curious, cautionary fates of many of the guys who go deep into game and Internet

Tom Torero has died, and he is said to have died by suicide. RIP. I don’t recall when or how I first started reading him, but it was many years ago, and I bought some of his books. I remember finding both DAYGAME and BELOW THE BELT (neither seem available on Amazon right now, sadly) amusing and at times inspiring: though, like many guys interested in these matters, there seemed to be a thread of darkness running through his soul + writings. He was smart, and I’m saddened by his passing.

There is a line of intellectual descent running through many guys interested in pickup or seduction, and it seems many guys found his work. Right now, the TomTorero.com domain seems dead, and I wonder if anyone has a backup of his material.

A few years back, Torero asked if I’d be on his podcast: for reasons of anonymity, I said no, though I listened to some episodes. If he’d been born centuries ago, he might have been a priest, or a heretic, the line between those two positions being thin. Heresy attracts me.

I’m saddened, and have read some of the memorials devoted to Tom, and I’m also thinking about others who have trod, if not his path, then paths adjacent to him: Roosh found god and has become… a curious personage, to be polite, although many less-polite descriptions are possible. If you wish to have him exhort you to find god yourself and stop sleeping with hot chicks, you can do so, though I don’t personally wish to.

Another guy, Goldmund, tried to monetize game and being a game coach for a number of years, before disappearing for a while and then coming back around, apparently also in some kind of spiritual/religious cast, after family tragedy. I find his recent work and exhortations… not compelling. That he’s done a 180, though, is notable. Why should we believe he won’t randomly change again? He is scientifically and technically illiterate, something he shares with others in this space.

Compassion and empathy for chicks

A guy on Reddit says to me, “I just want to say thank you. You helped me,” but I was a little confused… how’d I help him? I asked, he says “A lot of the prominent voices in this community seem to be motivated by hate, but I don’t get that at all from your blog. It showed me that there is an intelligent way to approach the goals I have.”

I also read The Evolution of Desire because you had mentioned it, and that book is pretty illuminating. Its easier not to get stuck in anger when I at least understand what is going on.

Evolutionary biology is key to understanding human sexual dynamic fundamentals… evolutionary biology is the difference between trying to calculate the area under a curve with calculus versus without. Calculus is the difference between the modern world and everyone living in sod huts and being covered with shit, and there is no substitute for fundamental understanding (a common theme around here).

Read evolutionary biology and spend a lot of time with chicks, and a normal guy will develop/have some compassion and empathy for them. Chicks have their own problems, many imposed by their evolutionary path. The male path is simple, “hot chick -> want to fuck -> try to fuck.” More & hotter are better. Men who didn’t pass up sex opportunities with fertile chicks left more children than those who did.

Priorities and what you bring to life (Katie’s story)

Women who prioritize families and long-term relationships, and who have reasonable expectations of the men they date, get married and have families and do their best to stay married. Those women are out there, but they’re not much discussed among the red pill / seduction / masculinity communities because they’re mostly invisible to us… Red Pill Dad and I have a conversation in his comments section about these issues, and I’m reminded of “Katie,” a woman I knew years ago, when I was in my early to mid 20s (she was, and still likely is, a year or two older than me). Probably a low 8 then… slender with no rack, so maybe she was a high 7 with a pretty face and pretty blonde hair, and during our friendship / interactions / flirtationship, she said she hadn’t had sex until she was in college and had had sex with 3 – 4 men by the time I met her, all in a relationship context. She was in a long-distance relationship, and I kept angling to get her into position to make my move, and she kept successfully angling me away, while keeping me in her friend orbit (we had some mutual things in common that kept us around each other). Good sexual tension between us. Eventually I did my move and she said no, hard, firm, and kind, although her long-distance relationship died of natural causes sometime after that. Tried again and she said no. Why? One, she was a year or two older than me (she didn’t cite that though it makes sense), but, most importantly, she knew I wanted to be a player, not her boyfriend.

A part of her liked me and the sexual tension, but her conscious forebrain knew what I was about and that I wasn’t going to wife her up. Katie came from a rich family and I think had excessive income expectations. We had good physical chemistry and made each other laugh… she was bright, too, and had a bubbly personality, and when a guy is potentially offered quality champagne it is hard to turn it down for whoever’s next, since the next girl might be watery beer. I bet she was/is good in bed. She had strong sexual presence yet I don’t think she was going to unleash her sexuality outside of a relationship. I telegraphed “player” and also had uncertain earning potential and she knew that, and chemistry was not going to get in the way of her larger goals.

Katie married the next guy she dated, or the one after him. She’s not on social media very much and never has been… to the extent she is, she’s depicted with her husband and family. No or little politics, no or little posturing. At that distant time when I knew her, I wasn’t properly strict on the “no friend zone” thing, so we kept in touch longer than we should have… I say “longer than we should have” because our professional life goals diverged, and our personal life goals were never aligned (I wanted to f**k a lot of girls and she wanted a secure family, that being the opposite of her family growing up). We had personalities that meshed in some ways but we didn’t have enough in common to sustain our connection, and I wanted to spend time f**king girls, not hanging out with a pretty girl I wasn’t going to f**k. She tried to hook me up with her unattractive friends… as usual, her attractive friends had boyfriends already. One of them was insultingly overweight, so maybe my estimation of her estimation of me is lower than I have been portraying.

Today, she’s been married quite a while and has three kids… and looks amazingly good for having had three kids, although she has the slender body type that handles aging really well, even if she was never a high 8 or 9. Could have had a little work done on her face. A lot of stunningly curvy women droop early, while some of the slender women who are less hot as 22 year olds grow into themselves. I’ve slept with women who are less attractive than she is, after she’s had three kids (you probably have too).

We never know what will happen, Katie’s story goes on, maybe Katie will have a change of heart and dump her husband to go do the f**king around she didn’t do early. Maybe her husband will turn her in for a younger model… life’s unpredictable and I don’t know her anymore and haven’t truly known her for a long time. It’s possible she’ll experience the deep satisfactions of seeing her family grow. It’s further possible she doesn’t have the much-discussed hypergamous disposition. If a player stopped her on the street or flirted with her in a bar, she’d probably laugh at him, or indulge him for a few minutes then say, “No thank you.” Players wouldn’t get far enough with her to make her memorable.

Stories about chicks who f**k a bunch of dudes really stand out in the mind, like stories about terrorism. Terrorism works at generating publicity because of the way the human mind works, even though you’re statistically more likely to die from excess sugar consumption, opioids, or cars. Stories about women cheating with 10 random dudes are more interesting than stories about women who thought about it but didn’t. The guys whose marriages go through a rough patch and then recover have much less need of red pill and seduction than those guys whose marriages dissolve. The guys who grow up with a good family and robust social skills have much less need than guys who don’t. Etc. “Selection bias” is real. I bet Katie’s husband doesn’t spend a lot of time online and doesn’t spend it in these Internet precincts. Why would he?

In red pill/seduction/masculinity communities, you’re disproportionately surrounded by guys who picked the wrong woman, probably without realizing what they were doing, and without the context to understand that you can’t make a hoe a housewife. You’re surrounded by guys who were cheated on, divorced, etc. Guys who grew up with single mothers, or with fathers who were weak. Guys with deficient social skills. That’s reflected in the worldview being generated by these guys. The male equivalent of the women whose sexual market value (SMV) mismatch problems have made them bitter towards men.

If your father ever taught you much about women, perhaps he told you a similar story…

More likely, however, he didn’t. Mine didn’t.

And if I had to guess, there are a lot of guys out there like me who had perfectly good fathers (in every other respect) who never really taught us about women in the way they taught us about the sea, hunting, fishing, cars, sports, etc.

The guys who are in (basically) happy marriages don’t have much to say because they’re not out hitting the streets chasing strange puss, and they’re not looking for deeper answers after seeing half their incomes diverted to their former spouses, and their former spouses’s new boyfriend. The guys who are true players probably have good social skills and gym routines and would find much of the anger and hostility online to be strange and off putting (as I suspect a lot of the red pill / seduction guys are in real life).

Katie realized correctly that I wanted to be a player, not her husband, and she reacted appropriately. I have met women who realize I want to be player but give in to their desires, and then find themselves frustrated when I am not interested in helping them pursue their reproductive life plans. Smart women mostly don’t make these mistakes, or, if they do, they have their month of fun and then jettison the fun sex guy in order to pursue the monogamy provider guy.

Most essentially, women who want monogamy find it. They don’t live in New York City, or in the big expensive party cities. They play no games, or fewer games than women who are addicted to interpersonal drama. If those women recognize a guy who does the things they want… a provider, a good earner, loyal, willing to commit… they will latch onto him and work to keep him. As they should. They will suss out who he is. Does he want to have a family sooner, or later? Does he have a good relationship with his own parents and family? Etc. They talk about their own desires to get married and have a family, since those desires can scare off players. They will bring other skills to the relationship than sex.

For a contrast, look instead at the 30-something female journalists, usually fat, who write about how there are no good men out there. Those women prioritized their careers over their families and chose to f**k fun-loving bad boys who didn’t want to commit. Then, as their SMV declines with age, they want to get out of the market, only to find out that their SMV is declining, and that they’ve practiced few of the skills that make long-term relationships work. They have lived lives that are largely the opposite of Katie’s, and they lack the self-awareness to understand what they’ve done or take responsibility for it. They have a lot to write about because they have to write something new every day or every week, and their failure to recognize how male-female sexuality works means that they can’t find the obvious principles underlying their decisions.

Let’s look at one description of modern women, “many, if not most women have become self-publishing soft core pornographers, posing with their asses in the air or wearing scantily clad bikinis or semi nude in their bedrooms making duck lips–those bored ass eyes, sexy and yet soulless.” I doubt this has ever described Katie or women like her. Plus…

women have a burden too–unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for those of us who are players), it’s become extremely reductive in modern society: be attractive (enough) and give sex. That’s basically it, and as many players have noted, this seems to be the only thing most women today are capable of providing. Maybe why I get so excited when I come home after a girl spends the night to find my bed made or my apartment tidied up.

I think Katie brought a lot more to her relationship than f**king, and I bet she selected a man who brought a lot more to the relationship than just money, or just decent sex. In this way she is like Anna, another girl who fits the “not very sexually adventurous” mold, although Katie is prettier than Anna and better than Anna overall. I’ve met plenty of women who bring little to the relationship apart from sex and I mentally tag them accordingly. They are the women who want to know why guys just want easy sex from them… and they are the kind of women who don’t want an honest answer to that question. A guy who has problems with the entire opposite sex usually has true problems within himself, and the same’s true of women. As guys interested in seduction we learn to improve ourselves. A lot of women don’t have those same self-improvement voices in their ears.

My friend Anna, who seems pretty monogamous

The world is a huge place, and any one of us sees a small small part of it. Seduction and Red Pill are a tiny part of a big world, and the guys in it are disproportionately ones with problems. I am thinking about it because I have a kind-of friend (see Female “friends:” the comprehensive statement), “Anna,” who is in her late 20s, maybe just turned 30, who is engaged… I’d rate her about a 6. A 6 with good habits, though… looking for a woman with good habits is under rated for long term relationships.

Anna knows about some of the things I do and am into… and she’s not into any of them. She’s been dating a guy for a while who is probably a male 5 – 6 in the looks department, though better in the economics / earning department. In Red Pill lore, that would mean she’s gagging to upgrade and stealing off to f**k random chads every weekend. It could be true… but I don’t think so… most girls can’t maintain a good-girl facade forever… most people will slip up. Online, there are many stories about guys being caught totally flatfooted and unawares by chicks who cheat, run up debts, etc., but in reality I think that’s rare… being caught utterly ignorant and without suspicion… most of these guys who claim to have been blindsided are not paying attention. With Anna, I think she’s going to marry the guy, if he’ll go for it. He might.

These are the stories no one shares online… cause they’re basic, quiet stories, about average people going about their lives. The millions of functional relationships out there are the dark matter that never make it to advice columns, people online, etc. Anna’s guy will probably never post about how WOMEN LIE because she’s not lying. In the Red Pill world, cheating, bad behavior, divorces, etc. get read… we should tell those stories because they are real and important… they are also viral because they’re outrageous. We don’t hear stories about monogamy, fidelity, sticking together through the bad times, etc., probably because guys in pretty good relationships never get interested in red pill and seduction.

I have also wondered if, the hotter the girl, the better the offers of cheating, etc., she typically gets, and the more likely she is to take advantage of all those offers.

The chicks dating online, the chicks who respond to cold approach… they are not necessarily representative of all chicks. The chicks who want monogamy and meet guys through school, work, church, or friends of friends, then stay with the guy, or break up with him in a reasonable way because they’re not compatible, we don’t hear about. Stories about how, “My girlfriend realized that we weren’t compatible, so we had a respectful discussion leading to a breakup,” do not get everyone angry and righteous. These stories are invisible to the online world of anger. For reasonable girls who are trying to be kind while getting their own needs met, their ex boyfriends probably aren’t telling stories about how evil they are and how all women are bad, cause not all women are evil or bad. Most are people. If I posted this to certain forums online I would probably be ripped apart for being a dupe, and then told how Anna is spreading her legs for randoms on the sly.

Could be, I don’t know, maybe Anna is getting gang banged by a gaggle of black guys every other weekend. Could be that she sociopathicly presents one way and acts another. Maybe in ten years she’ll divorce the guy out of boredom. Unlike most modern chicks, she’s not into social media… she thinks it’s kind of stupid… she’s had two serious long term boyfriends who I know of and not a lot of hookups, I don’t think. I know her from some mutual hangout spots, and I say that I’m probably not real friends with her because we are too different… we have some common interests, yes, and now some common friends, but it’s pretty rare for guys to be true friends with women, and our lack of real common interests keeps us apart, although we’re friendly and have spent a surprisingly long time talking. We feel a bit like work colleagues who learn from each other but aren’t emotionally close. Most chicks who know things about my life and know things about my ways will open up about their slut adventures, etc., if they have any, and Anna has not done that. Guys who present as sex positive will often get girls to reciprocate, and Anna does not. She is like me in that she wants to let other people live how they want to live, but she is not very interested in the things I have done.

The chicks willing to make sex videos and be with guys like me are not representative of all chicks. Etc.

For a guy, it’s not possible to know for sure whether a given chick is like Anna or like all the chicks divorcing their husbands, cheating on their boyfriends, enjoying the flirtatious attention of other men, etc. etc. But if you watch a given chick’s behavior, you’ll get a sense of who she is over time, and she will do the same with you. A lot of guys see chicks whose behavior is not consistent with what they say, and they ignore the behavior when they shouldn’t. But some chicks are consistent with what they say… they say they want families and monogamy, they go out and find a guy who will give it to them. Both Anna and her boyfriend seem to have a pretty strong sense of their sexual market value (SMV), something that makes them kind of rare in the world of online anger. A lot of people are trying to reach above their SMV value, then complaining that it doesn’t work well… these are also the people who generate outrage stories (I have known plenty of these people, too). The guys complaining about how mean women are… are they going for women who are 5s, low 6s? If they chase the same girls all guys want, the hot young ones, well then how much do they know about ALL women?

Plus… look at it from her guy’s point of view… he is dating a woman who seems to be pretty monogamous and about his SMV level. If he were chasing flakey 8s, he’d be posting online about why do these chicks play games, why is she cheating on me, why does she run hot-cold, etc. Instead, he’s not trying to chase the hottest girls… and that means he’s not posting angrily about how mean chicks are, etc., because he’s got someone he seems to like/love and he isn’t in the market for angry-man ranting.

Don’t have a strong point in this bit apart from the idea that outrage sells and spreads, while the opposite of outrage doesn’t. Guys in satisfying relationships with women aren’t spouting off Red Pill things. Even among Red Pill guys, the most outrageous female behavior is the most interesting. I have spent a lot of time in the past ten years in short relationships (6 – 20 month relationships), and some have been very satisfying… and have generated few outrageous stories, because the girl is normal and well-behaved, and we like each other. If we go to a sex club once a month… and the girl is fundamentally in my frame and following my lead… and I am making sure to stay at her pace and maintain her comfort level… there is not necessarily a lot of drama involved. The periods with lots of tumult, with badly behaved chicks, with chicks who are out of sync with me, etc., generate good stories. There are people whose actions, desires, and words all match up… we’re not hearing about them online. They’ve invisible to the anger machines.

No one posts online, “I’ve been seeing this chick for 14 months and it’s going pretty well.” No one posts, “We realized that we weren’t right for each other anymore and had a respectful breakup.” Stories about how this one chick did a branch swing by f**king her coworker and finding their sexting… those stories are powerful. They are real too, I’m not denying them. I’m not denying that chicks are capable of outrageous and vile behavior. I am saying that most guys can tell which girls will generate bad behavior, and that the guys want the p***y (and often the drama).

I still think it’s a mistake for guys to get married… it’s a mistake for Anna’s man to marry her because I think he makes more $$$$ than her (a LOT more). Marriage is an expensive, risky move. But… she is also the kind of person who is probably NOT going to have a family with a guy she’s not married to, so that element is present. She behaves less hypergamously than most women seem to, and she seems to have chosen a guy with a set of features, good and bad, that fit with herself.

All chicks have the potential to branch swing, behave hypergamously, etc., and it’s good to know this cause it will happen to you if you date enough chicks… but not all do it. The ones who do, make for better stories and bitterer guys than the ones who don’t. We all build echo chambers for ourselves, we all struggle, etc. I think there is too much anger online. I get why the anger is there. If some woman blows up a man’s life in an unexpected way, he’s going to be angry and extrapolate. If some guy doesn’t have the SMV to get the women he wants, he’s going to get angry instead of getting better, cause anger is easier. A lot of guys have been told lies about what women want, and when they see past the lie they’re going to get angry, yes. I get it, it makes sense. But anger blinds… don’t be so blind that you mistake your world for the world.

It’s good to pay attention to the possibility of a high duplicity chick, of borderline personality disorder (BPD) chicks, etc. But… they are probably not as common in normal life as they are in the stories online. Don’t be blind. Do some spot checks here and there. Confront the things that don’t seem right. But don’t be paranoid either. If you are paranoid and convinced all chicks are just waiting to cheat, upgrade, etc., you will not have a very happy life, or happy relationships, or the ability to bond with the better chicks (if you want to do that… some guys want to be players… that’s cool… the game is about helping guys get the tools to get what we want, not about telling guys how to live every aspect of our lives). There is an optimal level of “don’t let other people cheat you,” and it is not being on red alert all the time.

I have been some dark places… I get the anger… I do… but I want to acknowledge the dark without having it consume me.

“The stripper with the sugar daddy”

“The stripper with the sugar daddy” is my version of the title… let’s be real here, she’s no computer scientist… she does have a typical alpha/beta boyfriend dynamic going on, though… “I’m leery of his avoidant attachment style but, like my weekend shifts at the club, the promise of pleasure lures me back again and again,” the usual, honey…

I’m also beginning to realize I’m torn between A and B. B is reliable, empathetic, open, everything I am not used to in men — but deep down I know I am not as into him as he is into me. I find myself drawn to the 10,000-piece puzzle that is A. Even though he is evasive and maddeningly frustrating, I realize that I am in love with him.

It’s like reading red pill fan fic… the boring guy is too boring for her, the exciting guy is exciting because he’s unreliably available. With A, there’s a little “accident,”

We go back to his place and fuck passionately for hours, in every position. I love making you come, he whispers, kissing the back of my neck. When he’s about to finish he asks, can I come in you, but I hear, can I come on you, and tell him of course. I am shocked when I feel myself getting filled with something. It’s been a long time since I let someone do that, for me it’s as intimate as it is risky.

B, however,

sends me a link to a playlist he’s made. I listen to it before work and realize it’s a love letter. I am flooded with conflicting emotions. He knows I dance and thinks its “fucking badass,” which is a rarity; he’s a feminist, a real one. We are compatible on so many levels but there is something missing for me.

She likes him but is an avoidant type herself… so B’s statements of attraction to her turn her off… while A’s distance turns her on. Different types women of women will be turned on by different things. This is not a chick who likes comfort or needs much of it. This is a chick who likes wild uncertainty. The more sexually open and fluid she is, the more likely she is to be turned on by game playing, hot-cold, push-pull, etc. Know your audience.

Finishing inside is a universal path to intimacy and connection, however.

 

 

Women hate the demystification of romance: commodities, artisans, and the game

Women hate game but simultaneously women hate guys with no game. Players look at this and initially think those two views make no sense together, because on the surface they doesn’t… women should want guys to learn game and learn how to please women, instead of repulsing women with awkward banter, technical talk, sports talk, politics, terrible fashion, video games, etc. Yet we have all seen game demonized by some women and feminists, who also complain that there are no “good” men (and there’s some truth to their complaint, since men don’t learn how to be effective with women). I would probably never tell a woman in real life about consciously practicing “the game,” although I have encouraged a few to read Neil Strauss (they hate THE GAME the book).

What gives? The seduction and sex process is probably shrouded in more mystification than any other common human activity… the whole culture is collectively blowing so much smoke around seduction and sex that women don’t understand it either, and thus many women encourage men to do things that the woman herself doesn’t like, like “Just be nice to her,” fine advice if you are +2 or +3 relative to her in SMV and bad advice if you are not. Men don’t understand the seduction process or women.

What happens when you remove the mystification and understand the process? Men get more power (a few of us do, anyhow) and often, as a result, become less interested in commitment. Women hate game because it demystifies romance and pushes sex with a woman just a little bit closer to commodity status. A little economic theory for you, no one wants to be a commodity because a commodity can be made by many producers, pushing profit to zero or near zero. Everyone wants to be differentiated because a differentiated product can earn profits above the market rate. Apple makes more money than a thousand white-box computer makers because Apple is differentiated from white box makers; if consumers wanted to maximize income we would all be buying white box computers running Linux and a web browser. Most computer users prefer the branded experience though and producers want to create brand mystique so they can charge higher prices. Mystification can help everyone win. I’m writing this on a Macbook not a whitebox Linux laptop, so I’m as guilty as anyone, and I know enough to know better.

Many guys think, “What do women want?” “I don’t understand women.” “I got lucky.” If they learn evolutionary psychology and game, they figure out what women want and how to deliver it, with much greater consistency and reliability than if we don’t learn evolutionary psychology and the game. Many women have nothing of value in their lives apart from their p***y, so, if you reduce the value of that by learning game, they end up being commodities. Hot guys with good game take them for a ride then decline commitment, leaving her feeling used and unhappy. So women demonize game and think romance should “Just happen” like it does in the romance novels they masturbate to. At the end of all romance novels a hot guy wifes up a woman… usually a woman who is lower SMV than him.

Many women are frustrated because they find it easy to get a guy +2 SMV for sex but can’t get him for a relationship. The guy who is even SMV or -1 to her might be willing to do a relationship but he doesn’t have the value she seeks. To quote David Buss’s advice to a female colleague, “She is an 8 chasing after 10s but being pursued by 6s. It dawned on her that pursuing men just outside of her mate-value range was the source of her misery. Why would it take my intelligent friend so long to come to this realization? Her belief was encouraged by high-mate-value men who gave her cues to long-term mating interest—acting helpful, taking her to nice restaurants, displaying interest in her personal life, finding common interests that they shared. Men interested in casual sex commonly provide misleading long-term cues because they work.” (Source, Buss’s book, When Men Behave Badly.) Many women thrash in this trap for a long time… the ones who thrash in it too long end up being spinsters and writing those stories about why hot rich men won’t “man up” and marry 38-year-old women past their prime. Sex and the City is the fantasy version of women who play the field and somehow everything magically works out for them. Cultural narratives can deliver on fantasy that differs from reality.

Game improves male SMV but also makes the guy choosier and less likely to commit. A guy with many options won’t be as interested in committing as a running-to-fat guy whose chief hobby is video games, with pr0n and TV secondary.

Economic history has parallels to this: starting with the Industrial Revolution, people began figuring out how to produce artisanal goods at mass scale. Artisans fought like hell against mass manufacturing because they argued mass-produced goods can never be as pure and honest (or whatever) as hand-crafted goods. Everyday consumers were like, “LOL whatever bro” and bought cheap + functional. Entrepreneurs used factories to demystify the production process and make high-skill artisans redundant. The children of artisans ended up working in factories because that’s where the efficiency was, and thus where the wages were. Today some artisanal commodity goods have high status again among some people, but the vast majority of us buy cups and plates and clothes that have been inexpensively made by machine. Ikea, Target, and Amazon rule.

Early artisans were angry but ineffective, because machine-made goods were and are better, and the superior product wins over time. We now have the term “luddite” from nineteenth century anti-technology groups who failed to stop technological development. Women also don’t want game entrepreneurs to apply evolutionary psychology to the dating and sex process because they want to be artisanal producers, not commodity products. No woman, except a few unusual women like evolutionary biologist Diana Fleischman, will characterize the situation this way, but the instinctive anger reaction is there. Women like a guy who “just gets it” and shows his intelligence, charisma, etc. by “just getting it.” Women hate the idea that average guys can counterfeit (or, more realistically, learn) these traits, then avoid committing financial and attention resources to women. Personally I think these fears are overblown because the vast majority of men are too lazy with insufficient IQs to make any of this happen… but a few will learn game and in the process they might remove themselves from the marriage market. That’s frustrating for women. Smart men are learning from each other and using that learning to reduce female market power.

On choosing life

On choosing life.

Profound.

You’re probably not going to read it.

 

“Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills

I’ve said this in some different places but not headlined with it: “Picking up girls” skills and “long-term relationships” skills overlap, but there’s a lot of non-overlap too. For picking up chicks, approach anxiety, initial comments, flirting skills, sheer physicality, fashion sense, logistics, dealing with shit tests, etc. are paramount. Guys should practice and build up those skills. For long-term relationships, emotional compatibility, lifestyle, money/money philosophy, ability to maintain sexual heat, long-term life goals, etc. are much more important. Guys can be good at both but there’s a lot of distinction between the two and if you specialize in being a player you will likely hone the early skills and forget the later ones even exist.

If you are a young guy without a lot of experience with women you should concentrate pretty much entirely on short and medium term relationship skills. If you are an older guy you will have to evaluate your life course for yourself and think about what you seek over time.

Guys who are truly specialized in short term relationships may lose the idea that in the medium or long term, some of the “game” aspects go away… or change. Yes, women will still shit test over the long term, but sometimes the issues are real issues and not shit tests. Real issues that need to be addressed. Sometimes they are comfort tests, a topic that doesn’t come up much because I think most guys don’t get to that stage. Emotionally healthy and secure chicks will have needs that they will bring up, and consistently not meeting those needs will cause the woman to look elsewhere… if she is damaged she may become more attracted to adrenaline, drama, and not having those needs met.

I have made this mistake before.

“The mom having an affair because her husband did first”

The Brooklyn Mom Having an Affair Because Her Husband Had One First. This piece illustrates the dangers of affairs and non-monogamy. I see guys online suggesting that it’s okay for a guy to have a quiet side piece while his main woman cares for the kids and runs the house.

That is of course possible. For a few guys, feasible. For most guys, not much…. requires too much money, time, dedication, etc. Too easy to get caught today.

If you do it, she will likely want to do it too. And when she does it, this can lead to alienation of affection as well as paternity uncertainty. If the guy in this story thinks the next kid in his, well, he might be wrong.