Xbtusd is back, with a fresh report on what women who date women can teach us.
I have a bunch of friends who are lesbians—like, real lesbians, not the ones you see on Pornhub. It’s fascinating to hear about their sex lives and how they navigate the sexual landscape. However, things get really interesting when bisexual women date, or attempt to date, other bisexual women.
Successful men have an incentive to hide how hard getting to the top and staying there is, because women don’t like weak men who whine and complain about not getting laid… or almost anything else. Guys who have some success must present it like it’s easy and organic to women, despite the fact that almost all guys experience a lot of rejection and difficulty when it comes to dating… but this can’t be stated, because the unsuccessful men die off, figuratively, in her world and her attention. Women internalize the idea that men have it easy, because that’s what a lot of successful men are marketing… because they (we) think women demand it. When a market demands fantasy, sellers offer fantasy.
Continue reading “The whining disparity: Male struggle is invisible to most women”
“Deserves” is a childish word and the people concerned with what they “deserve” are often childish, if not outright narcissistic. The topic arises cause a guy I know is with a woman whose aspiration in life is to get married, it seems. Not BE married, GET married (the difference matters). She doesn’t want kids. Weird, right? Why bother with the marriage except for social status and kids? She doesn’t want the “kids” part of marriage, the part that really matters, so it’s pure social status for her, I guess. If that weren’t enough, my buddy (we’ll call him Steve) has read and been ensorcelled by the sex club book, so he wants to try non-monogamy. Steve has good communication skills, so he’s been negotiating out what the life with him and the woman should look like, since they want different things. He’s talked to her and not come to a final conclusion, in part probably because the girl fucks really well and is hot, two things known in combination to beguile men. There are FDA warnings about such women.
They were talking and the girl said she “deserves to get married” and “deserves to be excited about getting married.” I say “said” instead of “argued” because “I deserve to get married” isn’t an argument. Adults know that people don’t get what they deserve all the time. People also often don’t get what they do deserve, to the extent any of those things are computable at all.
I’m not opposed to people “getting what they deserve…” justice and fairness are based partially on those lofty goals. But “deserve” has so many dimensions that trying to compute them, let alone talk about them, seems futile. “Deserves” may not even be a linear system, so something like linear algebra may only be useful for approximations, not the real thing. The real world has very large, maybe infinitely large, matrices that include many variables for “deserve.” Does someone who works hard and makes a lot of money but is an asshole “deserve” the money? Does someone who is a good person who gives away too much value “deserve” to get that value leeched? I don’t know, and a person could generate an infinite number of such questions, with no final answer. Life is not solvable.
Science, engineering, math, and other nerds often care foremost about correctness, and their conversation shows their main priority, but “caring deeply about correctness” is unusual… in conversation, most people, especially attractive women, care about creating a positive vibe, laughing, group feeling, finding hierarchies, showcasing values, yeeting the outgroup, etc. Being factually right and learning new things is less than secondary, less than tertiary. This divergence in interest and purpose leads to a common failure mode between nerds and attractive women, and the conversation often goes something like,
Cute girl: blah blah blah blather…
Nerd: Excuse me, but, actually, I need to interrupt to say I know that, in reality, if you look at the fossil record and consider what this one paper says, you’ll see…
Cute Girl: No one cares! Like I was saying, Tommy said that Bobby said this crazy thing about Bree…
Male nerds think gossip is stupid, and then discount the conversation of most attractive women, and in doing so reduce their chances of sleeping with those attractive women. Male nerds might be right or wrong about gossip being stupid, but gossip is how women determine rank and hierarchy, and thus who to f**k. Attractive women seeking good vibes are going to care a lot about fluency and how a man makes them feel, and not so much about the precise content of the man’s patter.
In contrast, someone focused on factual correctness in conversation will often stumble and pause, regroup to think, choose words carefully, stop to overwrite himself, etc. He’ll be less fluent but more accurate. Women often interpret nerd conversational style as weakness or stupidity, though it may be the opposite, as the nerd is groping towards correctness.
Continue reading “What science, engineering, math, and other nerds get wrong about talking to women”
Naturally Selective: Female Orgasm and Female Sexual Selection,
However, the strongest predictor of female sexual response was none of these—it was attractive partner smell.
This will come as no surprise to, say, Jennifer Aniston, who is on record as saying that there is no better smell than that of the man you love, but it was an interesting finding to us. This is because smell appears to advertise your genome to potential partners. The science is complex, and some of it is in dispute, but there is credible research that immune system compatibility—what would make your baby healthy if you were to have one together—is signalled (both ways) by how attractive you find your partner’s smell. That women’s olfactory bulbs, the part of the brain that processes smell, are fully 40 percent denser than men’s would fit well with the knowledge that their decision-making here needs to be keener than men’s.
So, in brief, it seems that Darwin was right when he said “The power to charm females has been more important than the power to conquer other males in battle.”
Most men and women image match, that is, find someone who is fairly like them, in terms of obvious sexual market value (SMV). Sometimes, though, there’s no image match in a couple… if the higher-value partner is a woman, she might really like the man’s scent. Sounds minor but might not be. If you get a woman who’s preternaturally into you, your scent might drive her mad. Contrastingly, if she seems keen but doesn’t like the first kiss, you might be getting the reverse. That is one reason why a woman you’ve been flirting with might back away after the first kiss, she finds the fullness of your scent unappealing, through no fault of your own, unless you are fat or otherwise not taking care of yourself.
You don’t know until you try. Online dating is often rubbish because if the woman takes the time to match, banter, meet you in real life, and then doesn’t like your scent, she’s wasted a bunch of time, as have you. Hormonal birth control can affect a woman’s scent preferences, and some divorces stem from the couple marrying, the woman getting off BC to conceive, and then finding herself less attracted to her husband… and more attracted to her colleague Greg, yes, what is it about him that’s so different than it was a few months ago? She doesn’t know, she only feels “something has changed.” Her husband isn’t the same man any more.
There is a very large amount of randomness in the game, I and many others have written, and noticed. Scent compatibility is one small, yet critical, variable in the mix. I’ve also been more “scent compatible” with some women than others: women’s scents can range from intoxicating to arousing to neutral to so-so, and occasionally to negative, although that’s rare on an otherwise attractive, healthy woman.
The ignorant learn only from slow experience, the wise learn from augmenting experience with reading.
Default_friend predicts “The coming wave of sex negativity“, which is another way of saying, “Women will try to lower the ‘market price’ of sex by reducing supply”, and xbtusd has some thoughts about how that interacts with the “sex positivity” movement, to the extent it really exists, and most of this post is his:
There’s an embargo on saying “not all sex is good for women,” that you can think critically about how sex affects women, without being right wing or “sex negative.” It therefore becomes easy to be discredited as “not getting it” if you make any critiques of women’s sexual choices (and, perhaps, by implication, the choices of men). Because of the rules of liberal discourse, only women can weigh in on this debate in most media platforms; fortunately, you are not reading “most media platforms” right now. The women-only rule silences 50% of the population, and any woman who doesn’t agree with the pro-sex feminist take gets lumped in with the anti-sex religious nuts. A clever strategy, and yet it hurts us all when we can’t have honest conversations.
I think Default_Friend sees that discourse vacuum as harmful to women, and, simultaneously, that the narrative asserting “more and more sex for women is the only way to be empowered” is disingenuous. She’d like to see that conversation evolve: I feel like she’s pretty coherent in her worldview and consistent in her challenges to the current feminist narrative. She’d likely agree women are the worst slut shamers, and she’d understand why.
Continue reading “Xbtusd on the “price” of sex, and how guys pay it”
A guy asked me about what I think is true and useful in red pill, since I’ve written out some criticisms… it’s a good question… I thought about it… and came up with some answers…
1. Women (mostly) get their value; men (mostly) earn their value
An attractive woman who doesn’t eat too much sugar and isn’t ridiculously lazy gets a lot of social and sexual value as a teenager, and that value stays with her well into her 30s (where it can drop suddenly… a lot of women are surprised by the drop). She doesn’t have to do much to get and maintain her value. Men, by contrast, mostly have to earn our value through achievement. “Achievement” can mean a lot of different things.
“Mostly” is key because there are exceptions. Women can squander their value, and some get screwed genetically, and some get screwed behaviorally by their families (if your family feeds you a bunch of garbage simple carbohydrates and sugar, then a lot of the value will go away or never arrive). Some guys have great physical attractiveness and that works with women, for a long time, without great effort… a few guys get a lot of value without having to do much work for it. There are exceptions but the overall correlation is clear.
2. Most guys don’t understand women.
By failing to understand women or what women want/feel, most guys screw up their game.
3. Women are attracted to winners.
What “winners” means can mean a lot of different things to different women… but a guy who wins at something is going to do better than a guy who doesn’t.
4. Family courts in the United States are set up to attack men
Family courts take men’s money and children away, and there is very little a man can do to stop that process. Real world divorce should be required reading for any man contemplating marriage.
5. Schools are biased against men
Same as #4, but with schools. Parents need to resist schools’s desire to medicate boys, especially younger boys. I don’t want to spend too much time b**ching about bias… the solution to bias is to work harder than the other guy… but it is real and exists.
6. Men are performance oriented.
Video games are poisonous because they give the simulacrum of performance with none of the outcome from the real thing (as a side hobby they can be okay… for a lot of guys they are not a side hobby). “Performance” can mean lots of things, so this is similar to #3, and high, sustained performance leads to #1: achievement.
In terms of men and women “performance” is usually measured by, “are you f**king the chick?” If you f**k her… that is an unambiguous performance success measure… because it’s unambiguous… a lot of guys prefer softer, squishier metrics.
7. Game works. Pickup works.
The game and pickup practices work, if a guy is willing to put in the effort and practice. “Works” will vary by guy… a guy who is male 4 is still unlikely to get female 7s… but the tools are available for a guy to improve his sex and social life, relative to where he starts, if he wants to… most guys don’t, not really.
8. Chicks are usually more passive, and guys need to be more active
Especially with sex/dating, guys need to make the first move… and make things happen… most chicks will accept or reject offers and do little to move things along for themselves. Men create civilization, women live in it (and raise the next generation). Magnum likes to say that women veto. When I was younger I thought women were kind of like defective men because of their inability to propose, plan, and execute. Now I realize that different isn’t the same as defective… if you expect a cow to be a dog you will usually be disappointed.
Many guys don’t understand that it is our responsibility to ask her out, arrange the date, kiss her, escalate, etc. She won’t do it, much. At most she might make it a bit easier by staring at you, playing with her hair, etc., but even that is unusual. Chicks go through the first half of their lives with guys doing things.
9. If you work, you will get better.
This is not a strictly red pill idea, but red pill guys emphasize growth and growth mindset over static/fixed mindset. Trying hard and practice matter, and yet “trying hard” isn’t sufficiently emphasized in the United States and most of Western society. We influence our own destinies, and the harder we try, the more we influence. “Influence” is not the same thing as “100% control…” we are all somewhat restricted by the circumstances of birth, family, genetics, etc. But within those parameters, the people who work to seize control, get more control. If you believe you will fail… you are probably right… if you believe you can’t change… you are probably right…
10. On average, differences between men and women exist
This is pretty straightforward… you can overemphasize differences (a lot of red pill/pickup guys do) but you can also underemphasize them (media is super guilty of this).
In any community or set of ideas, one can also elevate and emphasize some ideas at the expense of others. When guys emphasize improving themselves and practicing new skills, that’s good. When guys emphasize what they perceive as being wrong with the broader society or culture, they often seem either wrong outright or at least misguided.
Red pill dad has a summary of “basic red pill things.” I think the distinction in #4 is rarely clean cut… and I think #9 is mostly untrue… but the others I mostly buy.
I’m sure I’m missing things, and this isn’t meant to be comprehensive… but there is little game happening during the pandemic, so we get more speculation and, sadly, fewer field reports… I have speculated that the pandemic will change the game… probably by making chicks more k selected, and less r, on average. When we have a lot of money, low disease burden, and extra resources, we can afford to f**k around a lot more. Cross-subsidies in relationships don’t matter as much. Can the woman not cook, but she’s good in bed? That’s okay, order takeout. Can the man not earn, but he’s hot and a practiced dom? That’s okay, she’ll get a job of her own. When we see incomes collapse and uncertainty rise… we’ll see more k. The opposite, more r. That’s my guess… it could be wrong… and it also only takes a few outliers for a “trend” to feel wrong, even if it is overall correct.
Years ago I worked with and sometimes supervised a college-age intern. She was into me for what I assume to be the usual reasons… she initiated the flirting and while I flirted back, I stay somewhat reserved in work settings. While I stand by what I wrote in If you are not a pussy you will do better than most guys: ‘When Women Pursue Sex, Even Men Don’t Get It’ and argue that men should be more aggressive and direct, it’s also unwise and unnecessary to f**k where you earn.
I slept with this one at the end of her time: I didn’t actually f**k her until she was done with the internship, and as far as I know we enjoyed some good times. If she was faking it during the sex, she was a first-rate actress. It was an easy, fun lay and she was also extremely petite and extremely tight. She was mobile and moved out of my geographic area, and when she got back I tried to re-engage, but she said a hard “no.” Too bad, but it happens, and chicks are random.
We’d stayed Facebook friends since then and while Facebook is a waste of time I do use it occasionally… usually to set up hookups or arrange real-world meetings. A year or two ago I happened to see a post about a career milestone for this girl (although I think she’s going in the wrong direction, I’ve not been asked my opinion so I shut the f**k up about my views). In the post she wrote about her career decisions and her relationship . . . with an older guy . . . who “took advantage” of her. I’m omitting some details, but she was definitely talking about me.
She wrote that I had taken advantage of her vulnerability and used age and wisdom to become intimate with her. She also wrote that I had betrayed her trust in me. This is funny because she was an active participant in seducing me and I recall what she was like in bed (eager, happy, seemingly satisfied or, as I said above, faking it well).
Our relationship did end in a somewhat untidy way and she got lost in the shuffle because I was f**king a couple other girls at the time, and she left the area pretty quickly. One day during that time I was supposed to meet her for coffee and as I walked in I saw my #1 girl already sitting at the window! I hadn’t properly prepped either for non-monogamy, so I had to run and make some unfortunate and very lame excuses… part of the angry girl’s reaction is probably due to my own hectic schedule at the time, and I should rightfully have done a better job of setting expectations, boundaries, etc. I wasn’t as good at that as I am now, or I just hadn’t had time to.
The aggrieved tone of her post is ridiculous and she is claiming the mantle of victimhood as if that’s something to admire. That woman (and she is now really a woman, not a girl) doesn’t think that women are capable of making adult decisions for themselves. Like a lot of “feminists.” For her, anything women do that they later regret is something that happened due to “emotional vulnerability” or “manipulation” or some such other nonsense. Women like this one are arguing, without realizing it, that women are children and shouldn’t be culpable for their actions and choices. Regret something? It’s a man’s fault.
I disagree with that view, but I’ve heard enough women express it to stop me… and make me think… what if those women are right? So many argue that women can’t be held responsible for their own actions and choices.
There are a handful of women in public who want women to be held to the same levels of accountability and rationality that men are. They don’t buy into the SJW worldview. They are just… rare. But a lot of other women think that women can’t be trusted to make their own sexual decisions. Feminists want to treat women like children. Sometimes I think, “Maybe feminists are right, given the female propensity to rewrite the past to fit present circumstances.” There is an epidemic of reframing consensual encounters as non-consensual, like that chick.
Here’s the other thing that I think plays into these problems… a lot of women from around the age of puberty up to age 22 or 24 don’t properly and truly understand the incredible sexual power they have over men. Or how powerfully and profoundly they excite men. Many men will go to almost any length for sex with them: this kind of power is enormous and it cannot be learned to be wielded correctly in a short period of time. Women experimenting with their sexual power are often surprised by how powerful it is. They are also sometimes surprised by the intensity of their own sexual response in the moment. But our society simultaneously tells women that they are oppressed and that men are bad guys. Enormous power + rhetoric about how she’s not responsible for herself = bad things.
In As Good As It Gets, the Jack Nicholson character is asked, “How do you write women so well?” and he says, “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.” I don’t believe this, and yet I see a lot of women in the media and online arguing it… not in these exact words, but with their meaning. Should we trust women who are making these very arguments, and believe them, when they tell us women can’t be reasonable and accountable?
Holly Madison Reveals The Hell That Is Playboy Mansion Life. Now, I don’t doubt that life in the Playboy Mansion was torpid and boring for the girls (how could it not be, with so little dick available and so little growth possible?). But Holly Madison got fame and a place on TV and rescued from her own inept life choices by nothing more than her beauty. After the fact, she’s pissed off about it and doubts her own ability to consent. She thinks she can’t be responsible for her own decisions… just like the former intern.
What women will think if men start taking them at their word? That women can’t be trusted to be consistent in their own decisions?
There are of course women who criticize the fainting-damsel mindset… the Red Scare girls do it in this podcast, where they talk about the power play at work and the displacement of desire by girls on to men. Camille Paglia demands accountability and responsibility in women, and she understands that many women have regressed into a childlike state of fantasy good and evil, and they show a longing for a patriarchal figure to take care of them. But without fathers or husbands, they are lost, and don’t understand themselves or masculinity. We’re in the midst of a new Salem Witch Hunt, in which hysterical girls can’t handle their own sexuality or admit to their own sexual agency. Years ago, women fought for the idea of sexual autonomy… now women fight to get rid of sexual autonomy and for the claim to be victims.
A player, “Mr. V.,” who knows about my nude photography art habit, asks how I do it… I’ve talked about the principles before, but now for some detail…
If she’s a hard “no” accept that. There is “yes,” “maybe” “soft (negotiable) no” and “hard no.” Negotiation is the subject of many books so I won’t write a whole thing about it now. Recognizing the hard no and the soft no is a job of the player.
When a woman sends nudes before sex it’s a bad sign, in my experience. Still not 100% sure why but I have some theories in the other post. I personally haven’t gotten a lot of this but I’ve seen a little. I also don’t request nudes from women, almost ever. I think requesting phone nudes is a demonstration of lower value (DLV) and also most women are inept photographers with inept cameras, poor light, and poor composition.
Another topic that gets no play in the Red Pill and seduction communities, cause most guys don’t get to this later stage, it is not good to trifle with women who are heavily investing in you. This damages the woman and while it is psychologically appealing to the guy (it’s nice to have the attention and desire you can return… or not), but it creates bad feelings and outcomes. Power over women who invest happens after the guy gets game and deploys it effectively, meaning that most guys never get it and this post is not for them, so this subject confuses them, like stories about a culture they’ve never visited and can’t believe exists.
I know the logical counter to this point (about the wisdom of refusing or discouraging investment that won’t be reciprocated)… “But chicks do this all the time!” True, true. But mature chicks don’t encourage male investment and male suitors who don’t interest them. Immature chicks… greedy chicks… they will, and that’s why so many younger guys have problems with the “friend zone” and perceived female uncertainty. Younger guys don’t follow the algorithm and don’t effectively sort girls into ones who might f**k and ones who won’t. I didn’t either when I was young & stupid, not to worry. I was afraid of “no,” when “no” is a gift, a gift of my time & attention so that I can direct them consciously into better things.
Mature guys… also don’t spend a lot of time and investment in women who are unlikely to be lovers. If a woman isn’t interested… the guy withdraws and finds a woman who is. Many chicks, if attention and gifts are foisted on them by inept men, will accept those… but if you are foisting gifts on a woman who hasn’t earned them, then you kinda deserve what you get. Immature guys believe gifts and attention should be rewarded with sex… when it’s actually closer to the other way around. No one in our female-dominated culture discusses to this.
This gets me to my point… when a woman’s emotions and sex habits are connecting and converging into you… it is not good to trifle with her, lead her on, and jerk her around. You will damage her, and inflict needless cruelty, and for what? If you have decent game, the sex part may be challenging, but it shouldn’t be infinitely so.
Some dysfunctional women prematurely invest when they shouldn’t, or they can’t help themselves because the man is unusual and matches their interest, or is much higher SMV than they are. If she does that… it is not your fault. But you should let go, want to let go, chicks who are deeply converting but who you don’t fancy in that way. At least tell them that you’re not going to be their boyfriend but can be their lover. Set expectations.
This is emerging from my own experiences and from conversation with a player who is interested in non-monogamy and who has found a woman who has also been searching for this her entire life, searching for a way to reconcile mind and body, emotions and physicality. Like libido girl and a number of others I’ve met, she craves the novelty of new sex… but wants a relationship too. Most guys, if they advance from casual sex into something more structured with a woman, won’t want a woman like this (they really want a woman who will be monogamous to them). There are a lot of pretend non-monogamous guys, and even more strictly monogamous guys (when you get down to it). Women who are sexually adventurous but with hearts and the desire to pair-bond… it’s actually not easy for them. Even with monogamous women, their real, true, and full investment is intense. For the bulk of guys who have never experienced the intensity of female emotional and sexual investment…. this issue will be invisible. Like “how to end it” with a woman. It’s advanced stuff. Beginners mistake compassion for weakness. Don’t worry, I did too, once.
I’m against being mean to people. Yes, women will sometimes be mean to you, they will try to take value from you without giving it in return. Yes, it is sometimes appropriate to be mean to people, or direct in a way that is seen as mean. But what is perceived as mean or cruel is often just a balancing of the scales of value.
Notice what I am NOT doing. I am not arguing against casual sex (it would be funny if I did, given my history). I am not arguing against deepening relationships with women. I am not arguing that women are innocent damsels (they are not, and the innocent damsel trope is a lie men tell themselves in order to be p***y… in the real world, almost no one is “innocent”). “Beyond casual sex” is more fun than just f**king strangers in my view. But… I am arguing that it’s bad for you and for the woman to let a woman deeply invest in your and convert to you, if you don’t set expectations, or if you plan to just let her dangle. Cut her loose and let her invest in someone else. The world is already harsh and full of bitterness…. no need to make it harsher and more bitter. It’s bad for the man’s subconscious. Keeping your subconscious aligned with your accessible consciousness is a part of frame, a part of being congruent that, again, no one talks about. Low status guys, f**ked up guys, are incongruent, and their low value and incongruence messes with their inner game. Higher-status, higher-class guys maintain congruence and have a keen sense of loose equality in terms of value given and value taken. This is getting a bit on the “hippie” side of things, about consciousness development, but I think that’s where the the higher levels of game live. Levels a lot of guys never hit, cause they can’t get past the lower levels.
Most women, by the way, never access higher levels of consciousness. If they do, they are already post-wall, and it is too late for them to access those levels via sexuality. Most younger women rely on men to get them there, and most men disappoint. That’s part of the reason we see the discord we see.
Seek for the higher levels. Discourage investment where it’s not warranted. If you see signs of her emotional investment, decide consciously if you want to respond in kind or keep her at a distance. The beginning parts of the game are important but so is the middle and end, where few guys live and where almost no guys writing online discuss.
The more time you spend around women, the more you realize most of them are basically irresponsible and want someone else to make decisions for them. This is why we have the crazy Title IX man-hunting tribunal in the United States and why so many women distance themselves from their sexual choices. This is also why so few women make it to the top of corporate and other hierarchies, because an individual has to be intensely responsible for his choices if he’s going to be a leader, not just a follower—something that most women can’t do. Men who have a lot of experience with women also learn that most women like to follow and so men are reluctant to put women in leadership roles, for good reason. Almost no feminists will admit this, leading to the absurd statements about women in companies that shrieking harpies propagate in the media.
I actually have no problem with women running companies or whatever, but I don’t think you’ll ever see as many women in leadership roles because it’s contrary to baseline female psychology. If a woman wants to be responsible for a large company and has the personality and intellect to do so, then that’s dandy. It’s just unlikely. Most women want men to take responsibility for them… and when she lets a guy into her soul, and then he chucks her aside, she’s wounded. Try not to let her do that. A guy who starts off low status might want to be mean, as revenge… but he’s really taking revenge on himself, for putting up with behavior he shouldn’t have. No reason to do that. The world is hard enough.
The Red Quest 