On my article about your opinions of women betraying your success (or lack thereof) with women, a reader writes
On my article about your opinions of women betraying your success (or lack thereof) with women, a reader writes
Yesterday I wrote an article on having healthier relationships by focusing on turning relationships mutual, rather than adversarial. Not 'compromise', not 'give and take', mind you; mutual.
When I wrote that article, I dove into the research on agreeableness. I thought agreeableness might play a big role in that article, but it ended up with a small part.
However, I did find it relevant for a different conversation I was in. It consisted of a few long-time players I know, both in their 40s, who are in the midst of their wife hunts. The discussion they had, which I joined in, was why do so few playboys and seduction coaches marry beautiful, wholesome wives from their home countries in conventional monogamous marriages?
Obviously there are men who marry beautiful, wholesome wives from their home countries in conventional monogamous marriages. But this is typically not seduction coaches or natural playboys. Instead these men normally do one of the following:
Marry a (sometimes beautiful) girl from their home country but have a non-monogamous marriage (i.e., they're swingers or they have an open marriage)
Marry a girl from their home country in a monogamous marriage, but the girl is very unattractive (even if the guy in question historically dated good-looking girls)
Marry a beautiful, wholesome girl into a wholesome relationship, but the girl is not from their home country (even if the guy has dated more girls from his home country than any other point of origin)
Their concern was, "Maybe the guys who are teaching this stuff and the guys who are learning this stuff are not so perfectly aligned."
The friends I had this discussion with are fairly advanced playboys, who have been in the seduction community for 15+ years, have perfectly respectable notch counts, and have studied under many of the more notable pickup instructors over the years.
Both are in the midst of 'wife hunts' and, struggling with this (i.e., they lay hot girls, but then those girls don't stick around... or they get girls who want to stick around, but those girls aren't hot, or they have problems), have started to question some of their methods and teachers.
The question I'll pose for today is... what is the difference between advanced seducers and ordinary men?
And does this mean if you are like 98% of men, and you are just an ordinary guy searching for an ordinary wife, you should be doing something different than what these teachers tell you?
In a recent comment, on the first article in my series on ghosting, a reader asked about feeling jealous over young women's seeming comparative ease in the dating market:
Chase when I read your analysis on how men ages 18 to 25 always struggle the most when it comes to relationships with women I just can't help,but feel cynical and jaded with how unbalanced the marketplace is. I'm headed towards the latter end of that age range and haven't had much of a dating life. I'm sympathethic towards women and know that they endure struggles of their own in life and in dating and I genuinely love women and recognize that most women are sweet and nice,but thinking about how much less women struggle compared to men and how they don't have to work as hard to improve their dating lives or even HAVE a dating life which a lot of men don't have I sometimes lack empathy for them and some bitterness will creep in if something reminds me of this imbalance.
I know in a old article you said we shouldn't compare ourselves with women because we're not competing with them,but it almost feels like men are engaged with women in a tug a war and men are at a disadvantage at least in the West. A moderately attractive woman will have significantly more options than a moderately attractive man and don't have to go through the lengths and struggles a man has to do to even be a viable dating option. Even a older less fertile women will still have suitors,but a older man may not.
I'm working on myself so i'm not just ranting about how difficult dating as a unestablished man is while not doing anything to change or improve. I've taken coaching,a bootcamp, and have a online group where I can discuss game with other people,set approach goals and hold each other accountable. Early on when you were learning pickup what helped you accept the uneven dynamics of dating in the West? Does it just take some success for you to be at ease with how the dynamics are?Do you really have to be in the 1% like some coaches suggest for dating to finally work in your favor and to be at an advantage over women?
Of course, the answer for me is that when I was clueless with women, a guy whom women unequivocally rejected, who could never get dates, and was always alone, I never felt jealous of women or felt like I was in a tug-of-war with them.
Instead, my competitors were men. Women were the objects of my pursuit; men were the competitors I was going up against (and losing against).
We don't envy the fox eluding us in a chase. We envy the other hunter who catches her.
However, this phenomenon of more and more men envying women, and on the other side more and more women envying men, is one I think worth a closer look.
Because it is affecting more and more people.
It is leading more and more people into some very weird and unproductive places.
In a comment on another article of mine, reader Ciro says
Historically speaking game as you call it, was never a factor in the past for getting women. Women needed men to provide for them, that's why game was never something you had to learn. Your grandfather and my grandfather didn't game women because a) they didn't have to and b) they wouldn't even know how to. Who would have taught them? Only recently women have become indipendent financially, now they can choose their men. They don't have to settle for the unattractive guy with a good job anymore when they are 21 only (yet some still do at a certain age). If game was a natural thing then why do most men have no game whatsoever? Why isn't game imprinited in our DNA if that is how you attract women? It should be natural.
This is a position I've seen around the Internet, on men's sites, and all over the place, really.
At first blush, it might seem to feel correct. There was no Girls Chase in 1960, after all! Nobody needed to read How to Make Girls Chase before the Summer of Love! They just went and hooked up!
However, it relies on some fundamental misunderstandings of why seduction became so prominent in the 2000s and 2010s (before sliding back into obscurity again in the 2020s).
The fact is, game has always been with us -- and it is, indeed, embedded within our DNA.
Nevertheless, we get guys pouring in who continue to ask the same questions again and again:
"How can I be really HOT on social media and build a huge following?"
"What do I need to do to CLEAN UP in online dating?"
"Can you use social media to set up lots of dates & get laid?"
"Why don't you guys cover more online dating tips? Meeting people in-person is so 2000s!"
But of course, get guys to be honest with you about the results they get from online dating and social media and they will admit they're let down by most of their matches.
15 years ago you could do online dating and sometimes get catfished by some chick who showed up 100 lbs. heavier than her photograph or mysteriously way uglier than she looked in her pictures. It happened to me a few times.
But if you knew what to look for, you could generally tell; fat girls have their ways of hiding fat in their photos, which girls who aren't fat don't need to turn to. Ugly girls use angles and lighting to fool the eye, while good-looking girls simply take normal pictures all straight-on. So you could just keep an eye out for 'fat girl angles' and 'ugly girl tricks' and avoid any girl whose pictures consisted of nothing but those, and you'd almost never get catfished.
Now, though, it's an epidemic, with women showing up in-person who look nothing like what they do online. What's the cause?
Based on my discussion with a few friends recently, the cause seems to be a very specific one: an app that's been on the market for years, but has gradually gone from being a thing a few women used here and there to touch up their photos a bit, to something every girl online dating in some places will use heavily simply to keep herself in the game.
The name of that app is FaceTune.
How much of our modern social ails can be understood by population pressures due to overcrowding?
Certainly we don't want for food, water, or things to do. Our economies are massive; massive enough to comfortably support everyone within them (and far more).
Yet, is this sufficient to produce a utopia... or have we run up on a physical limit that plunges us increasingly into dystopia?
In the 1960s, researcher John B. Calhoun coined the term 'behavioral sink' to describe the situation where behavior collapses due to overcrowding. Based on multiple studies performed by him and replicated by others, Calhoun discovered that mice in overcrowded situations tended to develop a series of pathologies that made them become increasingly dysfunctional socially.
Ultimately, the mice in the experiments became so dysfunctional that, despite plenty of food, water, and nesting areas, and despite being in perfect physical health, they became psychologically unable to reproduce, and completely died out.
What happened, and what can we learn?
The guys there had predictably varied tastes. Some guys are very into older women. Some are fine with much older women. But some aren't.
A point I raised was that it seems to me a preference for older women is likely socialized. i.e., this is a preference acquired by men, due to influences around them.
A lot of people aren't aware of just how many of their tastes are acquired tastes. They also often aren't aware of how they acquire them.
So from whence, pray tell, do your romantic likes originate?
If you're a seduction newbie (i.e., you're new to meeting and getting together with girls), I can guarantee you you have some objectively very silly beliefs about women that don't hold water at all.
It's not your fault you have these beliefs, nor are you dumb yourself just for having them. When the brain lacks real world experience in a thing, it picks up 'experience' by observing other things around it.
And our real-world media environment is just all kinds of stupid with the spin it presents on things.
The beliefs men absorb from the media they watch tend to be almost exclusively wrong. There is very little media out there that actively depicts male-female relations.
So you get this situation where men have limited and also shallow real-world experience with women, while meantime getting bombarded with garbage fiction messages from media, and you can't blame them for forming a bunch of inaccurate beliefs about female nature.
In this article, I'll do my part to expose those myths for what they are: myths.
That way you, as a guy going out there to chat up girls, can set these weird and harmful beliefs aside, and start meeting women.
(the image at the top of this article is not to suggest women don't sing siren songs, by the way. Some women certainly do. It's just a cool image of sirens, which are obviously mythical female figures, so it fits the spirit of the article)
This is going to be a somewhat in-depth article, with a deep look at the full (i.e., millennia- and civilization-spanning) history of feminism.
The purpose is to give you a broad, complete, and meta-view of what feminism is, how it arises, and what its function is in a civilization, so you can break out of male-female power struggles and get the women in your life to take a sweeping historical view of feminism as part of a natural cycle, rather than a more basic/low level "Fight the patriarchy! Permanent progress for the first time ever!" view.
Before we get to the real history of feminism though, first let's talk about why you'd need to talk a girlfriend or wife out of feminist leanings.
No matter your political beliefs, it is a self-evident fact that there is a certain branch of feminism that is toxic to male-female relations.
Some feminist views are fine, and not all of it is bad. However, there is a very vocal chunk of it that is acidic to happy relationships.
Look closely at the picture on the right. What do you see?
I circled it for you. There just below this girl's hand. See it?
It's a dildo.
For all you guys worried about your penis size, you might want to pay attention to the size of that dildo too. That water bottle is 7". The dildo is at least an inch shorter than it... actually possibly a bit more than an inch shorter.
There is this misconception among sexually less experienced men that women don't actually get horny except in extreme situations.
"Only when she meets just the right guy... and he says just the right things... and takes just the right actions... does a woman get horny..."
Women do upkeep on this misconception themselves, talking about how "men are always horny, OMG" or "all men think about is sex" or "why are men so much hornier than women."
But the truth is, women are total horndogs themselves.
You might not believe it (yet) if you're not that experienced with them.
However, once you get out of the illusory la-la land men are in before they gain experience with women, your eyes will start to open more and more, and you'll realize the vast majority of women -- including the sweetest, cutest, most innocent of gals -- really love themselves some cock.