Character, game, dating, and would YOU swap lives?

I was talking to Lee Cho daygame on Twitter about this, “One thing I’ve noticed about the game guys who write in depth… very few make me think, ‘I want to be that person.’ Many seem to have something interesting about them but very few seem top of the heap.” Most of the online game guys seem to have a bit of a screw loose, or lack common sense, or the ability to connect (for real, in a deep way) with other people… this shows, eventually, in their writing. Roosh might be the poster boy for this effect… I read him a bit years ago, probably like 2011 or 2013 or something, and found him interesting in terms of his game obsession but, even then, it was obvious that something was internally wrong with him, psychologically or spiritually, for lack of better words. Top guys (and girls… this is really a “human” thing, not a “man” or “woman” thing) have internal congruence, and people who lack it stand out… which Roosh seemed to, even back then… his interest in f**king women seemed to come from underlying dislike and disdain for women… which many women no doubt sensed, even if they couldn’t articulate what was off about him. So the higher-value, better-put-together women probably avoided him… which reinforced some of his negative views about women… leading to a cycle. Mature adults are highly attuned to congruence and will distance themselves from people who lack congruence.

There is “good screw loose” in the sense of someone who is smart but sees the world differently, and there is “bad screw loose” in the sense of someone who is off, f**ked up, etc. The online game guys don’t seem like they have a screw loose in the crazy inventor / startup founder / rogue genius way… it’s more like a screw loose in the way of the kid no one wants to pick for their team/group… even if the online guys get really good and accomplished at game. A lot of top girls, even the ones who are open to cold approach (lots are), are going to judge a guy based on his social world and social network… if the guy doesn’t have one, or much of one, she’s going to spot that quickly. So it’s going to be hard for a lot of guys to get or retain better girls… there are limits to the front. The better girls are also going to be super curious about character, and, if they find it lacking, they are going to pull away.

In real life… the people I most like and admire, I wouldn’t want to literally take over their lives, exactly, but there’s a lot in them to emulate, not just in their field of expertise, usually. Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is. Among guys developing game skills… almost none of them I’d want to trade places with… not at even odds… the number whose overall lives I admire… is pretty small. We’ve all probably met people who are “successful” in some domain, but there is something wrong with them, and whatever is wrong keeps them from getting to where they might get otherwise.

Take… let’s use the “all women blah blah blah” guys as an example. I agree that all women have the capacity to blah blah blah (whatever the example is)… but not all will… an example story from my life… there are others. Or the ones who say all women are lazier and worse than men in a bunch of ways… well, one study claims that women in their 20s now out-earn men in their 20s… one of my own early work mentors was a woman… she was at the top of her field. On average women are worse-suited to leading and creating large organizations… but there are exceptions, and “on average” conceals a lot… in terms of dating, all women have the capacity to cheat, sure… but not all do/will. If you think so, try to get women to have a philander with you… some will, but a lot won’t. If the woman is stepping out… there’s usually also something wrong with you, with her, or with the relationship… but men don’t like to emphasize that.

Top women… don’t put up with less-than-top men… women will also show you who they are, usually pretty early, and MOST GUYS IGNORE THE SHOW. Then… they bitch when the woman acts the way she has shown him she will act… you already knew, or should have known, who she is, but you choose to ignore that (the p***y is good) and then come to the Internet to cry… or to your friends… meanwhile… are you asking yourself who you are, and what you are bringing to the relationship… no, you are not… are you asking yourself what signs you missed… probably not.

If a woman bitches about all the cads she meets, and how guys are all blah blah blah… it’s like, you have probably met thousands of men, and if they are “all like this…” what do they all have in common… you? Same thing with men. Same thing in business. Have you ever met a manager whose employees are somehow all stupid and incompetent? Or an employer who can’t ever get workers? If he says that… then the manager hasn’t learned to be a manager, he hasn’t learned to help people level up their skills, or something is wrong with him if EVERYONE is incompetent. The business is not paying enough, or something else is the matter. I have already written about the most common problem women who can’t find a man have, “Mismatched sexual market value (SMV): Diagnosis and cures.” Well, in business, if a manager or company cannot find any employees, then something is wrong with wages, work environment, location, or something else. It’s up to the manager to diagnose those problems and make changes. Markets are pretty efficient. Most often the problem is wages. People want to make more money, not less, and if the firm is not paying adequately, people will go to the firms that are.

Character judgment is hard and often separate from physical attraction… most people claim to want both in one… most often they pick one and go for that… and get results consistent with it. Extremely effective people blame themselves for successes or especially failures, even when the success or especially failure is outside of their control. The question is always, “What could I have done differently?” “What do I do differently in the future?” Kids rarely do this… to a kid, it’s always someone else’s fault… to the true adult, it’s always my fault, even if it’s someone else’s fault… the most effective people do this… if you follow Elon Musk you know that he knows just about every single part that goes in a SpaceX rocket or Tesla car… he learns relentlessly, because he knows that if the rocket explodes, no matter whose fault it is, it is his fault. Look at the Boeing managers, by contrast. In Boeing, it is always someone else’s fault. But Boeing has an unfair crony capitalist market that is heavily tied into politicians, so Boeing can’t fail, over the short term, because it’s being propped up by regulators. Unless you are a trust fund kid or something, you have to get by on your own wiles.

Character judgment is separate from technical ability… people who are wise are doing it all the time… it is what I am doing when I write, “One thing I’ve noticed about the game guys who write in depth… very few make me think, ‘I want to be that person.’ Many seem to have something interesting about them but very few seem top of the heap.” Maybe they are different in real life… reading their writing, though, problems with character, personality, and intellect seem to leak out… even among the ones with very high technical skill… Krauser is probably the most technically skilled person writing about the game… but as for his character… read his blog/memoirs closely and decide for yourself… don’t take my word… don’t take my word for anything… try it for yourself… develop your own style, sense of judgment, etc. I can help you think about how to think about things, but I can’t tell you what to think. Many people never develop these skills properly and suffer for it, including many guys who are technically good at game.

I have seen some of the RSD videos, and none or almost none of them make me think, “This guy is admirable and I’d want to hang out with him.” Some of them probably have game… almost none of them seem like guys I admire.

There are exceptions… red pill dad seems pretty well put together, although I disagree with him in places… same with Magnum… not surprisingly, they want to stay anonymous… cause they know in the real world, the penalty of being made known is high… the amount of money one can earn from coaching is low… and most guys can’t be helped cause they’re too incompetent to be helped, or have deep problems, and “bad with chicks” is a manifestation of their underlying problems. A symptom, not a cause. A few guys can be helped… they are the ones I am most speaking to. The number of psychologically okay, well-put-together adult men who don’t have a real job, is super small. There is a lot of “location-independent income” roleplay happening online. I am 100% in favor of real small businesses that can do real location-independent income… that is, however, far harder to achieve than the online hucksters would have the average guy believe, as stated. Most of the guys pitching this… have little evidence of it. I don’t think I know any adult guy in real life, who is put together effectively and doesn’t have a real job of some kind. Effective adult guys… have a job… almost all of the time.

Effective guys also evaluate their effects on other people. There is a lot of “tough guy” role play online right now, among guys who think COVID precautions are stupid. Effective guys who are in touch with older parents / relatives / employers / employees… don’t wish to get those people sick, even if they don’t care too much about themselves… that is a point in How I see dating, girls, COVID-19, and the quarantines, right now.” Willful disregard of others tells us something about the guy, his mental state, and his social world. What it tells us… is not good. We know that the route through COVID and minimizing it runs through masks… yet there’s a bunch of anti-mask roleplay online (masks are a tool, not a symbol). Some guys will mistake the online game for the real world… which is sad… but maybe becoming more common.

If you read this whole piece… along with the original internal congruence one… you will see that a lot of it is about boy psychology versus man psychology… as well as, a bit less, girl psychology versus adult woman psychology. Girls are often attracted to men… and men are often attracted to younger women… but it is useful to see how and where these things intersect… and what maturity looks like. Some women reach psychological and emotional maturity very early… and if a man can’t match them, and grow with them, he is not going to last with her. People are messed up in some ways, are often attracted to and attractive to other people who are messed up. I mostly avoid the most messed-up girls (and guys)… I have f**ked girls who are somewhat messed up… probably not smart buy I have done it… but I have kept them at a distance. If the girl finds you messed up enough, and not in an attractive dark broody way, she is not going to f**k you… she is going to fade away. She doesn’t want to be in your life, like you don’t want to be in the lives of people with bad/weak character.

Dating sex positive and non-monogamous girls… and a ramble about the game

A player asked about the last FR… I told him that some of the women at that sex party were quite hot, but they were also looking for guys who are already good at what the women want… like, if you’re a guy and you’re not willing to do some mfm, they’re just not going to be super interested, and some women who’ve had a taste of what’s possible will not date vanilla guys anymore. Instead they want to date guys who can manage jealousy and who have underlying sex skills… those guys are not readily available commodities… so when hot women find guys who can make these peak experiences happen, some of them are happy to have found their male unicorn. Lots of guys will pretend to be non-vanilla and non-monogamous in order to get the lay, but few of them truly are, so women get tired of trying to separate out the pretenders from the real thing.

The player said

Can you just clarify this? These chicks wouldn’t date a vanilla guy just because he has not had experience/not into MFM? Really? I’m trying to gauge the value of MFM in my mind.

The hot women I’m thinking about would likely be open to dating a vanilla guy who is genuinely up for MFM, but a lot of vanilla guys will be excited for FMF (obviously), yet they’ll balk at the other way around. They don’t reciprocate, and reciprocation is a key aspect of human social life and bonding. A lot of guys are also sexually open minded in theory, but when the time for practice arrives, they change their mind and want exclusivity, etc. One woman I know searched for a primary partner and dated like 4 – 6 guys from the internet (not simultaneously), all of whom said they were cool with non-monogamy… then told her they wanted an exclusive relationship. She is a poly s**t so she dumped each. A lot of kinky/non-mono women find vanilla guys useless, cause it’s easy to waste weeks/months on them, just to discover that in reality, no, the guy doesn’t really want to be non-monogamous, although he’s fine with some fmf threesomes… just like every guy straight guy alive.

On the other side of the equation, some monogamously-inclined girls don’t want mfm. Why? If a woman really wants a conventional monogamous boyfriend who is going to be into her, mfm sets that goal back, and most men who will go for mfm will also seek fmf… a small number of guys are into hotwifing/cuckolding or whatever it may be called, but those defective guys are pretty rare.

Continue reading “Dating sex positive and non-monogamous girls… and a ramble about the game”

What to learn from famous guys, acting over the long term

I’m interested in what we can learn from famous guys, the actors and athletes and musicians, and how they structure their romantic lives, and you can see that interest in rambles like “When you’ve done it all, what then?” Those famous guys can get every kind of woman they want, and a lot of them spend a couple years laying out a lot of women. But… most of them wind up with long-term girlfriends and most of them even marry (then a lot of them divorce, like everyone else). Adam Sandler, to pick one example, could still be in the game as much as he wants… instead, “Movies shoot in summer, so he can bring his kids to set. During the year, the workday is arranged to allow him to drop them off at school and pick them up.” This is not a guy trying to max out his body count. Lots of other famous guys, guys who could have whoever, also don’t seem to be trying to max their body counts. What’s that mean?

I’m thinking about this because being in the game is many things, and one of those things is amplifying normal ups and downs. The highs can be very high but the lows very low. And I think about the highs because, as with drugs, loving the “high” too much can be dangerous, particularly for older guys. Building a peer group is important for almost every person, and guys into the game seem to also be alienated loners, often struggling with our own pasts, presents, and personalities.

There is something to the idea that “Age is just a state of mind.” To the idea, “You’re only as old as the woman you feel.” There is something to those things. But there is also something to the idea that, over time… doors do close. Lives change. People change. Peer groups change. Paul Janka hits this on the Torero podcast, and he says he got out of the game for a bunch of reasons, including that his friends were hanging up their pickup spurs and getting married.

I don’t really have a place I’m going with this. I’m thinking aloud. I also think that some people, guys and women, like the sex club thing as a couple because that allows the intimacy and partnership of a relationship with the novelty and ecstacy of the chase and new partners. The most successful couples in that world still put each other first. I bet a lot of the Hollywood guys, the musician guys, who get into long-term things have a little something on the side now and then, but they put their primary person first. The famous guys have problems with loneliness and meaning, like the rest of us. Maybe worse, in some ways, because someone always wants something from them (women know what straight guys are after, too). I know that if I stop hustling, very soon, no one but my real friends and my family want anything from me. Parts of the human conditions are real dark. We can try to understand it, but we cannot overcome it.

Think about girls, too. There is a lot of red pill talk about hypergamy and girls behaving badly. There’s some truth to that, too. There’s also some selection bias. I don’t want to repeat the whole thing but… “Guys who have successful relationships with functional women don’t seem very likely to end up writing for the Red Pill. Guys who get cheated on, dumped, etc. seem much more likely to end up reading the Red Pill, looking for answers, and venting on it.” “The women who react to street pickup are probably not a random sample of women, so drawing conclusions about all women can be dangerous.” Same with the women you meet online. I know some women, some of them very hot, who have never done online. I also know some women who did online for a very short period because they wanted a long-term relationship and when they found a guy who they like and who is reasonably within reasonable parameters, they stuck with him. Those are the kinds of women who are repelled by player vibes.

Game, at its best, allows human connections to flourish, “I will confess… the two ‘bottomed out’ periods of my life coincided with me backing off of game. I’m not certain the lack of game CAUSED those periods, I don’t think that was true… but game is an organizational force in my life, and I realize the utility there.” At its worst, it is guys trying to extract value, and extracting it from women who know what’s going on and are maybe attracted to that kind of thing. Trying to maintain that positive mindset can be one of the toughest things in game… and in life, in the face of adversity, rejection, etc. It’s something I struggle with. One way to contextualize struggle is to look at what others are doing and how they are dealing with the same conditions. Rich famous guys are different in many ways from normal guys, but not totally different, and we should think about what they choose to do.

All dogmas are to be avoided.

“Winners continue to win, and winning builds structural advantages”

That’s what a guy in finance was talking about on a podcast… I didn’t keep track of the original location, sorry, but the finance guy’s gist was something like, “In America, we have these narratives that we’re given from childhood. People are still religious, but we don’t really take our popular stories from holy texts anymore. We take them from Disney movies. The most common narrative when you’re a child in the United States is the little guy coming from behind. But when you get into investing, or any highly competitive arena, you realize that winners continue to win, and winning builds structural advantages. You’re disadvantaged if you’re small. This is not a romanticized story.”

The applicability to game is obvious… to come from behind takes a supernormal amount of work, and it takes someone who wants to buck trends, be different, and concentrate all of his resources on winning.

Most people can only win in one field. I have been talking to a guy in the game who also wants to improve his financial position (a good goal). But it is going to be very hard for him to do the game in depth and to dramatically change his financial life. The guys who he sees winning, financially speaking, have usually been laying the groundwork for victory for many years, and doing a lot of work to get to where they are. “Good, high-paying jobs” is a highly competitive arena where it is hard to come from behind, because other people have a variety of structural advantages built over years.

If you listen to rich, successful guys talk, a lot of them credit their wives for a lot of their success. Red Pill fanatics will reply to say those women are all cheating, they’re all waiting to divorce the successful man and take his money, they’re conniving, etc…. and while those things happen, I don’t think they’re the most common path for a successful, older rich guy. More commonly, a good woman will dramatically increase a man’s ability to succeed financially because she’ll believe in him, she’ll take care of the house, she’ll deal with the kid stuff. When he’s feeling down (everyone feels down sometimes), she’ll support him (there is a difference between sometimes feeling down and making your wife or girlfriend an emotional tampon). She increases a man’s ability to focus on other things, like his business and developing his skills. And of course for most guys, hunting for sex consumes lots of time, energy, and focus.

(Did you see the important word “good” in the paragraph… “a good woman…” a good woman enhances a man’s ability to achieve other goals, while a bad one is a burden.)

I am not suddenly pro-marriage, because marriage is a high-risk bet. If it blows up, the costs are sky-high. If it succeeds, however, the financial, time, and concentration benefits can also be very high. Some high-risk bets are good… this one seems net bad to me… and if a good woman enables a man to concentrate, talk to any divorced guy about what the divorce legal process does to his concentration.

Being good with chicks also has structural advantages. I know undersexed rich guys who can’t get laid, for all kinds of reasons… they are smart, but they have terrible bodies. They have oriented their minds towards technical fields, so that they can’t tease women, lead women, or connect with women. Women’s psychology baffles them and seems like a world of smoke, mirrors, vapor, and hidden trap doors (which it is… players just learn to navigate and get night-vision goggles). Guys who really learn the female mind can do very well at f**king chicks.

Obviously, a guy with a lot of money can use that to buy personal training, buy personality coaching, or buy chicks directly, but that last one has a bunch of downsides and the first two still take a lot of time and energy, and no guy who is 37 is going to get his 20s back. He may “make up” for them in some way, but time goes on direction. Rich guys may not have the structural advantages the captain of the wrestling team had… or whatever example you want to use. Almost all guys who nail a lot of hot chicks have some kind of structural advantage. Could be a job that introduces them to a lot of hot chicks. Could be good looks. Could be exceptional charisma. Could be sex clubs (or, as I think of them, an undervalued market opportunity that most guys don’t understand… investing in undervalued assets is how all those hedge fund guys got rich).

In popular narratives, the ugly duckling gets the girl in the end, who chooses him over the oafish jock. In reality, the oafish jock usually wins the pretty girl. “You’re disadvantaged if you’re small.” And in popular narratives, the ugly duckling often isn’t that ugly. We love to see the little guy come from behind. In reality, the solution is often literally to get big, by hitting the gym. Chicks respond to hot guys, more than they do to pudgy guys. Guys are more driven by pure body than chicks are, but chicks are too. A lot of guys absorb lessons from pop culture that are actively wrong.

Nailing hot chicks is a highly competitive arena with lots of subtleties, for most guys. There are naturals, yes. The guys who do it well (for a time, in most cases) often devote themselves fully to it. I have spent time (more time than I should have) explaining many of those subtleties in one area.

How many marry out of tiredness or desperation?

I wonder how many guys (and girls) get in relationships or marriages not because they really truly want to, but because their dating markets are thin and the courtship process is onerous and annoying.

There’s no way to answer this question, but I bet the number of people who are in relationships because they really truly want to be is smaller than the number of people who are in relationships because they feel they can’t do better, or are tired of flakey chicks, etc. I believe that, subconsciously, I responded well to non-monogamy for a bunch of reasons… one being that it can effectively deal with the large number of flakey chicks out there. One reliable girl is better than 10 flakey ones and if a flakey one shows up on a date with the reliable girl, it’s a win-win.

Get outside of the big cities and you’ll see the dating market get really thin really fast. In that environment, pairing up makes sense, because the good ones won’t be on the market forever. It’s more attractive to be an eternal bachelor in the thicker, dense cities, because there is always new tail around the corner.

Women can think the same thing but the biological clock is working against them to a much greater degree past age 30. So many women in their 30s in the big cities are trending towards spinsterhood because they misuse their valuable assets.

Very few people do things for entirely “rational” reasons (I used to think I knew what “rational” means in general, now I don’t really), and understanding our own internal drives is very difficult.

Types of girls and dangers of most seduction techniques

Redpill and seduction communities are focused on hot young party girls. And that’s fine! Great, even. I’ve spent loads of time chasing and attempting to f**k and sometimes even f**king these girls, so I’m well familiar with them and why redpill and seduction guys give the advice they (we) do. But the girls who have either quit that phase or who have never really been in it… they are not going to accept a lot of techniques you’ll hear the most about. You need to master the game to move beyond the game, if you want to find and get them… a theme I have been blathering on about lately. Those girls might be much more interested in your underlying value and your commitment willingness, rather than your party f**k-boy manslut ways.

Today’s discussion begins from me, noticing that “women are the ultimate red pillers. Men are just noticing what’s already there,” regarding some chick’s conversation with her hypergamous friend,

Then FortWorthPlay said, “NEVER feel bad for using Dread Game..they secretly love it and it makes their panties wet.” I’m not so sure…

Depends on the girl I think…. one who is psychologically healthy and really wants a relationship/family needs very little dread, and a very light touch. She’ll reject a guy who does dread game on her.

Most basic college/party girls, yeah, sure.

‘Types’ are important here.

Types” is a Nash point… one I have adopted… I have been “a certain type of player” and also Nash has written about “types” on this blog, “First off, you’re doing something SMART here by starting with some TYPES. It is a simple fact that we are not all the same, and by defining some types… we can introduce some tools and immediately know that they are not for everyone, but that doesn’t make them invalid. With that said… for me the ‘poly’ community is a fucking mess.”

Types. Environments. I have been most consumed by chasing hot chicks in the city. Big-city girls, and particularly young ones, are also more likely to be hunting fun sexual experiences from the ever-discussed “alpha males.” I have spent some time in smaller cities for work and they have a less feral sex culture. Women and men marry earlier. Children are more common. Divorce may be more common as wel but that is a separate point.

Continue reading “Types of girls and dangers of most seduction techniques”

Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player

Tough conversations this weekend. I’m having some challenges making some of the changes I want to make, and I am suffering some right now because I have been a player for a long time and have a player reputation and a lot of player instincts. The player instincts don’t serve me well in trying to develop a longer-term relationship with a woman who has a more secure attachment style and who knows what she wants.

A word on reputation and what chicks are looking for. Players tend to filter out family-oriented chicks. TD Daygame has been talking about this on Twitter, although I don’t think he has a blog anymore, so I can’t link a canonical post on the subject. But chicks who want monogamy and families do exist…. they are the ones who are not intersted in guys who give off player vibes. Some of them are also very pretty. You can tell who they are because they usually have a small number of lifetime sex partners, usually don’t have sex immediately, and typically find guys who are attractive, have their shit together, and are career-oriented. Extremely sexually adventurous chicks make for interesting and fun stories… extremely family-oriented chicks don’t, usually. I am thinking of two chicks in particular I know who were (and are) very pretty and followed this pattern. Often they will compromise somewhat on looks and extroversion to get family-oriented and monogamous. They often find long-term guys in their 20s and often work jobs that give them access to guys with good earnings and family orientation.

Obviously there are many family-oriented, mostly monogamous chicks who will have one or two flings in their lives… if you catch them at the right time with the right game you may get with one of them. But for the most part these chicks keep their wilder impulses under control and filter guys for being better dads and providers. If a woman is looking for this she is not going to like players or guys who signal player. This is the kind of woman who, if you cold approach her, will say “no” and move on. She’s probably never been on Tinder or, if she has, she quit it in disgust. She’s not doing the things all the Red Pill guys complain about in sexually active women, but she’s also looking for a guy commensurate to her in value, so low value guys are going to be just about sexually invisible to her. I think a lot of online Red Pill guys are low value and thrashing about women because it’s almost impossible to overcome being low value, kind of like fat chicks complaining about men. For fat chicks, their number one problem in accessing higher-value men is being fat, and pretty much nothing they do without changing their diets and movement habits will improve their situation.

Reputation matters and chicks are going to judge you on, like you judge them on it (if you know them). Continue reading “Tough conversations. Downside of being known as a player”