The Tom Torero lay report book, “Below the Belt”

If you’re interested in Torero and have never read his books, start with Daygame, or his textbook (I can’t find the name of it now). Below the Belt is a series of lay reports and it’s fine: it does what it promises for guys who jones for more lay reports. At least a few of these have appeared in other forms, including some in Daygame. It’s strange for me to read them, as I’ve read some of Nick Krauser’s books, and I know enough about the background between Krauser and Torero to find Krauser’s absense notable. There seems to be some narcissism of small differences between them… they are similar in so many ways… yet some obscure-seeming beef separates them. Like Nabakov and Edmund Wilson having a falling out. I find whitewashing the past like that to be odd, regardless of what precipitated the split. I would rather learn about the tensions between them. There is a deep literature on creative partnerships:

In his book “Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work,” from 2001, the sociologist Michael P. Farrell made a study of close creative groups—the French Impressionists, Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries. “Most of the fragile insights that laid the foundation of a new vision emerged not when the whole group was together, and not when members worked alone, but when they collaborated and responded to one another in pairs,” he wrote. It took Monet and Renoir, working side by side in the summer of 1869, to develop the style that became Impressionism; during the six-year collaboration that gave rise to Cubism, Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque would often sign only the backs of their canvases, to obscure which of them had completed each painting. (“A canvas was not finished until both of us felt it was,” Picasso later recalled.) In “Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs,” the writer Joshua Wolf Shenk quotes from a 1971 interview in which John Lennon explained that either he or Paul McCartney would “write the good bit, the part that was easy, like ‘I read the news today’ or whatever it was.” One of them would get stuck until the other arrived—then, Lennon said, “I would sing half, and he would be inspired to write the next bit and vice versa.” Everyone falls into creative ruts, but two people rarely do so at the same time.

It would seem that Torero has had several of these partnerships, with Antony (who is mentioned) and Krauser (who is not). If you want the negative take, Nash has you covered. I don’t have a strong view on the issue. I’m also in a different world, as my entire life doesn’t revolve around seduction or writing books and other products teaching it.

The Torero lay reports are valuable, and I don’t have a lot ot add to their value. Game reports reinforce how flakey and random girls are. A girl can be DTF one night, then ghost the next. Most guys don’t appreciate the randomness of girls, and more guys should.

Overall these stories seem like they match my own experiences, and that is nice. If we’re all having somewhat similar outcomes, then the system mostly works, probably mostly for the reasons worked out by guys who know evolutionary biology and create game systems that incorporate the results from it.

I like this:

In this book I’ve also made a conscious decision to document the darker sides of the player lifestyle, from rejections and dry spells to runaway egos and fuck ups. If you want to be a member of the Secret Society and get lots of casual sex without the romance then there’s a price to be paid, even if it’s not initially obvious.

Some guys writing about the game are either very young (in which case their life is all about the game and banging new chicks, as it should be) or underestimate the dark sides. I think there are still darker sides than we get here. The ego protection mechanism is still at work.

I vehemently disagree with this:

A long-term PUA has to be selfish, by default. He doesn’t settle down in one place or with one girl. He goes for what he wants and perfects how to get it. Learning the pickup skill set is exactly that: improving your frame, standing up for what you want, not being the Nice Guy doormat. The same techniques that work with gaming girls (breaking rapport, qualifying, leading, dominance) spill over into all your interactions. It’s not only girls that start calling you an asshole and a jerk.

A long-term PUA does NOT have to be selfish. Good PUAs create “win-win” situations. Chicks want to be seduced and wish more guys would learn how to seduce them well. A guy who seduces a chick is not being selfish. Especially if he does not hide that he’s a casual sex guy. A guy who sets the relationship frame appropriately is creating value in the world. A guy who pretends he might marry a girl and then jilts her… he is being a selfish asshole. I think chicks can sense that I have a generative spirit, despite my non-monogamous ways, and I think that helps me out. “Generative spirit” does not mean I’m a “nice guy” (I’m not), but I also try to make the world a better place. I genuinely think game does make the world better, because it teaches guys the skills chicks already wish guys had. I’ve been told that it’s nice to be asked out in public, by a guy, in person. Even chicks who say “no” or “I have a boyfriend” have said that. There is a problem with masculinity in the United States and maybe the world in general. Game is part of the solution (a topic for another post, maybe, although it will be a rambling, philosophical one).

“A long-term PUA has to be selfish, by default” tells us about the writer, not about the world. It is true that chicks will project eventual monogamy and domesticity onto the player. I have had that happen (although some of my interests in group sex retard the chick’s projections).

“The loud, cocky confidence which attracts girls is abrasive when you’re dealing with it 24/7.” Yes. I have met these guys.

She said that I was the third guy she’d ever had sex with (the first two were long term relationships) and the first guy who’d not bought her expensive shit. She also said she liked the direct way I stopped her on the street and that she knew I wanted to fuck from the start. Good feedback for a player, I’d felt my frame improving since daygaming Russians.

The thing about gifts is very similar to what Ms. Slav told me. That said, if you are trying to keep a girl around for the medium term, gifts can help a guy pass comfort tests. There are no comfort tests mentioned in this book, or if there were I missed them. A girl only loves gifts if she’s earned them. If she hasn’t earned them, a gift is a demonstration of lower value. Guys mistakenly see chicks go ape shit for gifts in movies and TV shows but forget that movies and TV shows are fiction, often catering to women who love the idea of an already high value guy giving them gifts.

If you ask a chick, “Do you like gifts from guys?” they say, “YES,” because they are imagining it coming from a hot, high-value guy. In which case a gift is very good. From a low-value guy, it can be okay but kind of icky.

After the lay we reclined on the bed and I asked her my typical post-sex questions (you’ve got a short window after the notch to get a girl to spit some truth from her hindbrain before her forebrain guards take over again).

I’ve also seen this. Right after sex is the best time to talk to chicks.

A weakness of writing books of just lay reports (like my first book in particular) is that once you work out how to have casual sex, the infield reports start to sound robotic as you get less and less learning points and levelling up in each one. The puzzle’s been solved, the hustle has become consistent, so why keep writing? Is sex just sex at the end of the day?

I have been thinking about more stories from my past, but many of them are not that interesting. Particularly the girls I’ve met online.

Some chicks are also attracted to players:

Finally she found out about my double life and my Tom Torero brand (I’m not sure how, but who cares). After a little bit of coldness she was increasingly turned on by the idea of me fucking lots of other girls for my job.

In a later story, Torero talks about dating a woman for a year and breaking up with her because she wanted a deeper relationship and perhaps a family. I would’ve liked to hear more about this. That may fit my own pattern of a larger number of short and medium term relationships, as opposed to a large number of one-night stands and ultra-causal encounters. If I like a chick, I try to keep her on rotation (non-monogamy can help with that). A guy who loves the one-night stand ought to do the one-night stands, and some girls want ultra-casual sex or decide they don’t like the guy after he takes her for a ride.

In my experience, it’s also rare for the first-time sex to be the best sex, so there is that aspect for me. Usually it takes three to five sessions to hit the peaks. Many guys who Yohami would call “bottom guys” think of consensual non-monogamy as a beta move that allows the girl to get strange dick while the guy sits at home playing video games. For guys with options, and guys who like a chick to stick around, the big problem can be retaining her in the medium term.

Should you read it? I dunno. If you want more lay reports, then sure. If you’ve already read a bunch of them, as I have, then I don’t know if it’s that useful. They do get repetitive, and that sense of repetition may be part of what’s making me thinking about the next part of my life. I have a kind of sense of having seen it, done it, it’s not as satisfying as it was, what’s next?

Podcast with Tom Torero and Anthony

I read Tom Torero’s book Daygame and in it he talks about his early wing, Anthony, who eventually leaves the game for whatever reason… probably a chick. Or burnout. But Anthony is back in this podcast. Listen to the whole thing.

Anthony is talking about burnout when he says, “If you overdo it [game], it can take you down.” I know that feeling. More often now I feel the void after sex. It’s more like looking into the abyss. I remember, in my 20s, reading about that sort of feeling and thinking, “What a load of shit. Dumbasses.” Now, here I am feeling the thing that I used to make fun of.

Anthony sounds like an interesting guy. He got a PhD, probably in finance. When I was young I also considered pursuing an academic path, as Antony actually did. I’m very happy I didn’t, especially given the miserable state of modern universities, but it’s notable how most guys writing game blogs have some academic or systematizing parts of their personalities. I’m guessing that players without those personality traits never write what they’re doing.

(I like player blogs: leave suggestions for new ones in the comments.)

Despite my feelings about the void, I don’t know what the alternative is. I’ve done some bleating about how I’m less excited about rogering chicks than I used to be. That bleating is true. But, at the same time… what else would I do? That is not a facetious or rhetorical question. I literally cannot think of anything more fun or meaningful than being in the game, however tenuously. Or anything I can reasonably do. It would be interesting to, for example, quit everything and go back to school to study aerospace engineering and try to become an engineer for SpaceX, but that is a very, very long jump from where I am now. I’m reluctant to throw away so many years of effort.

There is a part of me that wants to do just that, a part of me that feels like I’ve exhausted the major parts of game and my current work. I’m positioned well financially, but not so well that I can quit working forever. I’ve taken care to minimize expenses (that, plus an unwillingness to play Keeping Up With The Other Suburban Mommies, helped kill the relationship with my co-parent), but not to the extent that I’m totally financially independent. Could be there in five to ten years. At which point it will be too late to re-tool in a serious way.

Every day, at least five days a week, it is a good idea to get up and make a short list of things you want to accomplish that day. Every month or so, it is a good idea to write a list of things you want to accomplish that month. Every couple of months, things you want to accomplish that year. Do all that and stick to it and you will likely achieve what you want to achieve. Not everything (there will be slippage), but you will avoid pissing away a lot of days. This is true of work and of personal projects. Any individual day is insignificant, but the days add up. I did not invent this strategy and don’t recall where I first heard about it, but many companies and individuals use it, or variants of it.

Despite the preceding paragraphs, I feel like there is some new phase of my life coming up (writing this blog, now, instead of writing it five or ten years ago, when I had far more material, may be part of the change) and I don’t know what that change is. For most guys my age, that would likely be family, but, again, I’ve already been there and am not eager to do round #2. Though it is conceivable I will, somehow, at some point, likely under a more co-parenting arrangement than a traditional marriage or marriage-like arrangement.

Also… realistically… banging really hot chicks is amazing in the moment. Really, really amazing. The total pinnacle of existence, even when I feel empty after. When it’s really good, it’s a kind of peak experience. So there is that facet of life, and it’s one that I feel like a lot of other people miss. Or they sacrifice it for the sake of their families. Which is fine, and I respect that, but… damn. In the moment, man.

Some of Torero’s podcasts are too basic for my tastes, but this one I listened through. The notion of sparking, or creating an emotional moment in a chick’s otherwise dreary life, is also good.

I do wish Torero would go more into his own inner darkness. Maybe he has and I missed that. I have read most of Krauser’s books, and they seem to present a more complex view of Torero (that’s one way to put it) than the one I perceive in the podcast. Many people who get far outside the mainstream and into game have some inner demons propelling them forward, away from conventional society. I like the players who will go into the dark. When I’m with a girl I try to get into the darkness in her soul too. Most girls like it when a guy will do that in a non-judgmental way. Sometimes I do find that a girl is too messed up for me, but it is actually better to discover that sooner rather than later.

The deep psychology that keeps men in the game

I think most basic guys who get into game just want to find a pretty, acceptable girlfriend, and when they find one they drop off. Maybe they eventually break up, only to start the cycle anew. Or they have kids, and that’s another set of issues not conducive to game writing.

Then there are the guys who get into the game, maybe to find a girlfriend or maybe to just sleep with a lot of women, and they succeed: over time, they have amazing and awful experiences and they rack notches. They have amazing stories.

Eventually racking notches loses some of its appeal. Most women are not that good outside of bed; they’re annoying to be around; they themselves lose their personal discipline; and the Coolidge Effect kicks in. So guys start to feel what I call the Groundhog Day effect, where nailing yet another rando loses some of its thrill. SOME. Not all of course. Most intelligent guys, sooner or later, also want to create something more lasting than random bangs. Usually that means kids. Often the desire becomes acute in the mid 30s to early 40s. One can imagine biological reasoning for that, or the realities of aging and death as one’s parents die or become elderly and infirm. A lot of guys who marry or de-facto marry in their 20s do the opposite and seem to break up in that period, maybe because they realize their opportunities to relatively easily close 20-something women are going to dwindle.

(Yes, I know, the Internet is full of 45- and 50-year-old guys with their HB9 24-year-old girlfriends… maybe… I’m sure it happens, and it’s not impossible, but I don’t see much of it in my own life.)

Maybe the apotheosis of the “pack it in” guys is Neil Strauss, since he wrote The Game and then wrote The Truth, which can be read many ways… one being that he got tired of the game. His own psychology or biology were tired of the chase.

Granted, he is also a famous millionaire and married a 20-something swimsuit model. [Addendum: He seems also to have filed for divorce, so so much for that example.]

We have two classes of guys so far: the ones just looking for an okay girlfriend, then the ones who do it for three to ten years before deciding to have kids or otherwise change.

Then there are guys who are in it for the long haul.

They are the guys who write the most intense blogs for the longest period of time. Then the blog becomes fodder for a book. Most guys write for a while then disappear into monogamy or kids… or boredom with only speaking to pseudonymous guys online: I’m likely to disappear at some point; I don’t make money doing this, will never start a coaching business, and will probably run out of stuff to say. Yes, there is daily outrage against men in the news, and I’m prone to writing about that, but I think I will quit due to diminishing returns.

The long haul guys are Krauser, Tom Torero, Blackdragon, probably some other guys I’m not aware of (although Blackdragon is writing more about relationships and less about game as such). Leave comments with others I’m leaving out. For them game seems like a total life practice and purpose, not a phase. Seduction is their art. Or their demon.

Art or demon? In a comment to another post, I said that I wonder about the psychology of some of the hardest-core game guys. Neil Strauss wrote about his own psychological demons in The Truth. Tucker Max isn’t exactly a game guy but he too has written about his demons, especially as they relate to his messed-up mother. Krauser has written about his domineering mother too (very similar to Max and Strauss, and this may be a pattern worth exploring). I don’t want to go all Freudian, but I have to think about whether some of the more extreme cases come from bad places in childhood.

And, specifically, from men with bad mothers. Max, or his therapist, thinks there’s a psychological pattern. Does it take being somewhat messed up to really succeed at the highest levels of conscious game? Nash’s post “Tom Torero is a Thief | Street Hustle Book Review” got me thinking about these issues… be sure to read the fruitful comments on that post. I don’t know what to make of the post because I don’t know Torero personally and he doesn’t seem immediately slimy to me, but what Nash says isn’t impossible.

Psychological explanations about declining long-term game motivation, loneliness, and a desire for substance are easy to dismiss as “blue pill” thinking, but I don’t think all of psychology is “blue pill.” I don’t even think the drive to pair-bond, which most people experience in various ways, is BP. Many BP guys suffer from oneitis because they can’t do any better, but some RP guys get tired of the game, of female bullshit, and the tedium of the chase. Even the joy of sleeping with a new chick can become a drug. Drug metaphors are common in game. Drugs can lead to abuse and the need for abstention and, ultimately, recovery.

To guys who’ve never had a lot of women, the last paragraph may sound like BS. So be it. Unless you’ve had five+ years of active game or sexual success, though, I don’t want to hear your arguments.

Get the experience, then you can tell me it’s BS.

Actually, I want you to have five+ years and be over age 30. Contemporary guys aren’t ready to have families and that kind of thing until at least age 30, more likely age 35. If you are age 21 or 26… talk to me in ten years. Enjoy chasing skirt today.

This has turned into a hell of a ramble post, but I’m going to keep going.

Almost all the guys in game, or realistically writing about game because I don’t know anything about the guys whose writing I haven’t encountered, have a common narrative: they were sexual nobodies or nonstarters in high school and usually college. Some didn’t get going in earnest until age 30 or later. Often they were or are jealous of their more successful-seeming rivals. Usually they don’t understand women’s feral sexual nature and are shocked to discover it, as shocked as Europeans finding the new world. They don’t understand that evolutionary psychology compels women to have an official purity narrative layered on top of their actual sex drive and behaviors. They learn game and change their lives enormously.

That is a common narrative for guys and it isn’t my narrative. I’m coming from a world where I’ve probably had above-average success for most of my life. I’ve had struggles and I still struggle, and I am not laying chicks like a Hollywood actor, but I have done and am doing fine. Positive feelings and thinking tends to beget more positive feeling and thinking. To me, game formalized a lot of things I already sensed and helped me improve weak points. But I am not reacting against extreme failures in my past.

So my past and key reference experiences are different than the game guys I’ve read. I did “okay” in high school. At the time I perceived it to be below average, but now I realize I was above average, though not at the very peak. In retrospect I had a lot of problems with pedestalizing, weak eye contact, and, during initial encounters, subservient behaviors. But I had a lot of advantages from sports teams, reading, and decent willingness to approach (what would now be called “warm approach” in a school, university, or work environment). Given enough green lights I would escalate up to sex. I had a reasonable number of what I would now call positive reference experiences.

In college no one knew about “the game,” and while I wouldn’t call myself one of the ultra-high-achieving naturals, I did fine. I kept up with sports discipline, so I looked better than most guys. I did the default baggy college guy outfit and although it worked fine in retrospect I should’ve tuned what I wore better. I relied on pure body more than fashion. I also wish I’d learned about black iron compound lifting earlier. At the time I believed that fancy Nautilus machines were safer and better. They’re more advanced and technological, right? WRONG. But I didn’t know better at the time. I also thought fat was bad and carbs were good, because that was the dominant thinking at the time and the government must be right. Fat makes you fat, right?

Hahahaha, I know, in retrospect I’m laughing at my naiveté too. I didn’t know any better. Neither did many other people.

But I tolerated rejection well and by the time I was in college I had a pretty simple setup: I figured out early on that I should stock beer, vodka, and a mixer. My strategy was simple: “Come over to the dorm [or house] for a beer later.” Drink a beer or two, listen to music, watch a movie, escalate. When you are surrounded by young hot unencumbered girls… a minimal amount of game can be very powerful.

I bobbled lots of stuff and didn’t persist through LMR. One of the most beautiful girls I ever tried for came over, took off her shirt, but said no to more, and for some reason I just stopped pursuing her. Years later she said she had a huge crush on me and wanted to know why I didn’t like her back. I told her that I didn’t think she liked me.

There are many other missed opportunity stories I could tell, but I had a strategy of sorts that was good enough and it was better than most guys. Game is often like running from a bear: you don’t have to be the fastest, you just have to be faster than the other guys. College guys are real slow. I’m sure that if I posted many of the things I did and said to the Internet, an army of couch-PUAs would tell me everything I did wrong, but it worked well enough.

Colleges basically set up warm approaches. Middle class and middle class+ college kids also have nothing better to do besides sit around and gossip, so I got a reputation as a “player,” which of course helped me with like 80% of girls. The reputation wasn’t really deserved, since I just ran the simple algorithm, but I wasn’t complaining either.

I also didn’t know how to keep girls on rotation, so if a girl wanted to be my “girlfriend” I would say yes, and “be her boyfriend,” most often until I got bored with her, at which point I’d suddenly break up with her and she would cry, because I didn’t know how to set appropriate expectations. Or she’d eventually catch me with another girl and get angry. I had a couple of those sitcom-y conversations where the girl would say, “But you’re my boyfriend, how could you do this to me?” and I would reply, “Because I knew that if I didn’t, you wouldn’t have sex with me | would stop having sex with me.” She would be… confused, more than anything, I think.

The right answer, of course, is to say, “I’m seeking something casual and we’re both in college and we’re too young to get serious,” but I wasn’t that sophisticated and back then no one was talking about poly or open relationships. I did intuit how to be sex positive, albeit without knowing that term. Not slut-shaming girls and being the chill guy they can come to for sex that won’t get back to their friends was super smart.

I also had not come to my fundamental realization, that there are really only two kinds of relationships: relationships with a woman with whom you plan to have kids, and all other kinds of relationships. When I came to understand that, much became clear that had previously been mysterious.

Because of my sex-or-nothing attitude in later college, I became a somewhat polarizing person, because I eventually learned not to be faux friends with girls I actually wanted to sleep with. At the start of college I was… not so good at this and did some embarrassing things.

After college I somehow got the idea that it was time to “get serious” and “settle down.” Don’t ask me how or why. I don’t know. Other guys did similar things. If you love to raw dog you may wind up with kids earlier than you intend.

Overall I did well for a long time and that must have affected me and my expectations. Like I said, at the time I didn’t know about the joy of the barbell, and I didn’t formally know or intuitively understand that neither men nor women have much control over who they’re attracted to. Women’s attraction is often sub-verbal, visceral, and not optional.

Evolutionary biology is the foundation of game: a fact so important that I have to keep saying it. Attraction starts of course with looks and the body, which is why every RP and game writer says that lifting (or any exercise really) is such a vital place to start. Women don’t have much control over attraction, so maximize what you can control. That starts with the body’s motions and what a guy puts in his body.

It doesn’t end there and I’ve seen really attractive guys underperform because of personality flaws, being too passive/needy, etc. Having the whole package is best but not an option for most guys, since we just have to develop what we have.

The other side, of course, is that men only have so much choice in who we’re attracted to. Women wear makeup, hit the gym, choose high heels, etc. because they know they’re in competition for the very top guys. Every time I read a woman write about how women should quit high heels I laugh. Go ahead and do it… but your competitors won’t… and their raised, wiggling asses will attract the eyes of men.

Women know guys like youth, health, fertility cues, etc., even if no woman who isn’t an evolutionary biologist would use those terms. A given woman may defect from optimal strategy but if she does the higher-value guys will get taken by women who don’t defect, so the vast majority of women conform to male preferences. Just like guys who want to get laid conform to female preferences. You may have seen defectors who cut their hair short, quit shaving, and go vegan. Actually I only see them if they’re in my way, otherwise they’re pretty much invisible to me, like they are to the vast majority of straight guys.

Part of the game is learning those opposite-sex preferences. I didn’t know them in high school or college but I learned them well enough, and the formal component came later. It’s not necessary to know the formal component (virtually no men who have ever lived and reproduced knew it) but it will help, just like it’s possible to dominate a high school basketball court without lifting, but lifting will make any athlete better.

I wonder about the psychological effects of being a relative outcast during the formative years. I have my own psychological quirks, I’m sure, but they don’t stem from utter failure when I was young, which seems like such a common game origin story. A lot of guys who get into game at age 30+ may be going through a phase that I started when I was like age 18.

This is not a “shame guys” post, as I think everyone should pursue happiness and satisfaction as they see fit. In some sense I will likely always be in the game as long as I am physically viable, since I’m not interested in monogamy and likely never will be.

How much tail does one need before one is basically satiated? When I am 50 or 55 or 60 will I still want to be stopping women and saying that I have to say that they’re cute, but they look like they’re ready for a yoga class? Are they poseurs or really going? Etc. I have seen the old people at the sex clubs and they don’t seem to be having fun and few of the younger people want them there.

Like most normal people, I’m also subject to feelings of loneliness. Friends help with that but are not a panacea. I’ve chosen a weirder life course than most people around me, and that makes having friends and maintaining friendships harder. Most people around me are married. Those who aren’t, are almost all divorced (and then most often re-married). I’m the guy at weddings and holidays without a spouse… or with an “inappropriate” date. Yes, I know that I shouldn’t care and should be a proud lone wolf, but I haven’t gotten to where I am in the business world by ignoring social cues. Almost no one gets to the top alone. The further up you go, the more soft and people skills matter. I’m good enough to mostly get away with my other life, but I can also listen to what people say.

I don’t think I have the psychology to be permanently in the game. I wonder about the guys who are in it for decades. Do they get bored? Do they wonder if there’s anything greater out there? Have their formative experiences so scarred them that, once in game, they can’t get out? I’m clearly not anti-game or anti-sex, but I wonder about these issues. Maybe I’m in a weird place because I’ve also already done some of the empire-building that is common to guys starting around ages 35 – 40.

I also have a job and no desire to turn game into money. I don’t see sex as a validation of who or what I am. That’s part of the reason I’m happy paying for it, if the circumstances are right. Though I haven’t paid for it for a while, because I’ve been seeing women pretty steadily. To me paying or not paying for it isn’t a matter of pride. To me, the physical pleasure of sex is the best part. I’m susceptible to that feeling of intimacy and closeness that comes from sex, even though my conscious self knows it’s a lie. I don’t chase skirt for the ego trip (as best I can tell). There seem to be some number of guys writing about the game who want to f**k pretty girls just to see if they can and just to then say that they can do it. My motivations are more immediate and physical.

Most of the guys I know who have kids and a strong relationship are much more pleased than the guys without. I think we evolved to live around families and to raise kids. A lot of people who never do that, something is either wrong with their heads from an early age or goes wrong as the loneliness of transient f**ks messes with their heads over time. I use the phrase “a lot of people” instead of “all people” deliberately: you may be an exception. In human affairs, there are always exceptions, but you may also be lying to yourself and thinking you are the exception. Most of this ramble is targeted at guys over age 30 and likely over age 35. If you are 25 and have gotten this far, just bookmark this page and come back to it in five or ten years. For now, go bang all the hot chicks you can. Younger guys need the experience and need to get the call of the wild out of their systems.

Older guys, though, older guys who have been plowing a lot of chicks… who find themselves looking at the ceiling after the latest random is passing out next to him… who want to build the future by having a family… you guys are wondering about the long-term psychology, like I am. This ramble is for you. It does not tell you what to do, for that is not my way. It does attempt to help you think about what the good life is. The good life at age 24, may not be the good life at age 40. Maybe, though, you are a pickup artist. Artists are often maniacs, obsessed with their art until they die. If that is you, so be it.

Tom Torero’s memoir-textbook “Daygame”

I’m smacking my head after reading this:

I asked her to bring me a present costing no more than £1, and I’d do the same. It’s an “investment routine” that I’v used many times since, which gets the girls to commit to the date and not flake – they spend the week thinking of what to get you.

The quote is from Tom Torero’s Daygame and the suggestion is brilliant and easy. I wish I’d thought of this ten years ago. Being good at anything is the accumulation of thousands of small details. This suggestion is one and it must improve pipeline retention. People can also usually only hold a single thing in their mind at a time, so if she’s thinking about the present she’s not thinking about whether she ought to flake.

If you are doing any amount of game and earn more than $5 per hour you need to read this book, as it may save you many many hours through suggestions like the one above. The ones you find most useful will be different from the ones I find most useful. Guys will get more from reading one comprehensive book than 100 random, fragmented blog posts. Daygame puts many seduction pieces together. The simplest parts of game are the very beginning (when there isn’t much to do apart from opener, vibe, and stack) and the very end (the actual sex). It’s the middle where the action happens and for that reason most of Daygame is about the middle, just like most of the Internet posts are about the beginning or end, where guys need the least instruction.

There are too many lessons in Daygame to list them all, but I like: “Either interactions go well, or they’re just funny stories.” Exactly right and you have permission to take the pressure off. Be fizzy and exciting. There are an infinite number of possibilities out there and while I’ve done many things right, I’ve also spent too much of my life taking things with women too seriously. That has almost always been a mistake. Learn to let go and be light, rather than heavy.

Some of the lessons regularly readers of this blog-memoir will recognize: “This whole story, and other ones in the book, show that deleting details is a bad move, as you never know when circumstances change and a number sparks to life again.” Remember “Snapchat in Game?” That’s what I’m saying there. Girls are mercurial and pretty random, and you never know when one is going to turn back around into you. It is unwise to rely exclusively on rebounds but you will get some when you get good.

The psychology behind seduction and seducers is also of interest, at least to me. In the beginning Torero writes that “By the age of 23 I had slept with 2 women.” No wonder he later became a PUA. I had a relatively normal adolescent and college experience, as I started having sex on the early side of normal and never stopped. I waas at or close to what PUA guys call “abundance mentality.”I had crushes and oneitis problems, like most guys, but my past is nothing like Torero’s. Unlike many guys I’ve never had a long drought (except in my 20s when my now-ex had our second daughter, but that’s another story). That may be why I’m tiring of the game and grind while some older guys still love it. I feel like I’ve done it too long.

I don’t want to claim that I was a master seducer. I wasn’t. I’m not now. My younger self mostly had what I would now call eco system game: school and sports. Because I was obsessed with my sport I built up a solid body and solid group of people I knew. That continued into a job involving it, and into college. Also, as players know, the better your body the better your dating life will go (within limits and subject to diminishing returns like every other activity… I have known gym rats who’d be better served cutting their two hours a day in the gym and meeting actual girls) and that is particularly true among younger girls. Of course looks alone are not enough and especially for women a guy’s looks are linked to his status. But I do think I’ve coasted on looks and things like quitting sugar have been to a boon to both my physical self and confidence. Looks are also more important for online dating than off, in my experience, and quitting sugar while lifting assists here too.

At the end of the book Torero is a sage:

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better your vibe, the better your approaches and dates go, and the better they go, the better your vibe. I felt like I was indestructible.

It’s fun reading these hybrid memoir-textbooks, as they teach me about the writer but also about the reader. My game has never been as tight as many of these guys, and there is a concept or slider in pop psychology that may explain why: some people are “satisficers” and others are “maximizers.” As the terms imply, satisficers keep trying until the satisfaction point for their drive or desire, while maximizers want to reach the highest possible level or state. For someone doing game a maximizer seeks some combination of the absolute hottest, younger, most loyal girls, or maybe the most extreme experiences (like three ways).

Satisficers however seek “good enough” and stop there and that has mostly described me. Which explains why I have never had the energy to really press for achievements like Torero’s. To be sure I’ve had success and some crazy stories, a few of which I’ve shared here, but nothing like the quantity of women described in Daygame. Generally I find one I like and get into a mini relationship that generally lasts three to twenty-four months. Then I begin cranking again.

At first I wasn’t consciously doing this, but over time I realized it. I think I am just too lazy to bother getting really good, but this doesn’t bother me much and I’m glad there are guys who go all the way. Reading about the Elon Musks of seduction is fascinating. I’ve had some high eights and nines and while they were wonderful, the truth is that when I’m in a woman I don’t care that much about whether she’s a decent seven or a high eight. The latter is better but in my life, especially now, there aren’t a lot of high eights out there. A while ago I dated a girl who was 19 and IMO a solid 8, with things only breaking down about 20 months in when she demanded to move in and I said no. But even with a solid 8, by the 50th or 100th sex session a guy acclimates to her body. She normalizes.

Back to Torero. Interspersed among the stories are big-picture ideas, like this:

When it comes to seduction, girls don’t want logic, they want emotions. The problem is that guys approach dating and daygame from a logical perspective, when really what they should be getting better at is seeing it from the female perspective.

Absolutely. Definitely an error I made when I was younger. The book is filled with mentions of mistakes I have made. If the next generation of guys internalize these ideas maybe they will avoid the mistakes. Most guys of course are too lazy to read books, so they will make the same errors, but the knowledge is there.

If I have a criticism of the book it is that it doesn’t look enough at the dark side. Intense gaming can be isolating and very few guys share the need to do intense game. In addition I read one of Krauser’s books in which he describes Torero going deep into the void in the 2012 – 13 period. That has been excised from this book, so one would never know it. Almost all positive things also have their shadow, and the lack of shadow here makes me doubt it more than I otherwise would.

Torero also mentions going to Oxford and studying with Richard Dawkins, but he eventually becomes a primary school teacher. Perhaps the UK is different from the U.S., but in the U.S. it’s very rare for graduates of elite universities to go into low status, low pay professions like primary school teaching. So why’d he do it? What led him there? We don’t know. Maybe it isn’t important. But it seems strange from an American reader’s eyes.