Your blog is making me seriously disillusioned. How disillusioned should I be? Do you have any idea about how common your views on gender relations are among younger people? Do you know any research about it? Have you made any very approximate estimate of your own?
Your blog is making me seriously disillusioned. How disillusioned should I be? Do you have any idea about how common your views on gender relations are among younger people? Do you know any research about it? Have you made any very approximate estimate of your own?
Respectively: Slightly to moderately disillusioned, somewhat (although not super) common, and I don't know how to estimate the commonness. A fair number of teen guys appear to like Andrew Tate right now, despite him being a clown and a fool, which may indicate that there's something not going right with the mainstream educational views on sex and gender.
There seems to have been a larger seduction-skills scene in the 2006 - 2015 time period, but that mostly seems to have gone away. Whether that makes you more disillusioned or less is up to you.
The free book I wrote about consensual non-monogamy hasn't exactly been a rocket ship, so I suspect that doing CNM hasn't and isn't likely to prove popular in the short term. On the other hand, compared to two or three decades ago, it's much more popular, so the timeframe in question might matter.
>Whether that makes you more disillusioned or less is up to you.
I'm not sure, actually. But I can always find something to get disillusioned with.
I read Freddie DeBoer's book about writing a book and he said it is nigh on impossible to market anything without a literary agent. So maybe you just lack a literary agent.
Do you have any idea about any female counterpart to your movement? If I were on the market, I wouldn't like the prospect of men "gaming" me. Do you know of any corresponding attempts of organizing from females who want dating to be effective from their perspective?
Oh, it's a book that no conventional publisher would touch, ever. It's way too incendiary. Fortunately we live in a world of Substack and Amazon. I've learned a lot from self-published books in this field, however rough many of those books are, and however crazy some of their writers are.
Re: female counterparts, women, particularly on the younger side, tend to have challenges different than guys: for a lot of women, the game is about getting commitment from a higher-status guy. For a lot of guys, it's about getting with a woman at all (a topic explored in more detail at https://theredquest.substack.com/p/game-or-relationship-levels-different-for-men-and-women ... apologies for the bunch of links, but one virtue of having written a lot is the ability to point at that writing, instead of leaving a trail of incomplete, half-baked thoughts).
So the corresponding female issues appear almost everywhere: back in the day, magazines like Cosmo. Today, female dating podcasts, romance novels, etc.
More women appear to be interested in aspects of consensual non-monogamy than were 15 or 20 years ago, which is a change. Women often appear to have a harder time getting guys to do CNM with them than guys do (I've heard a lot of stories along these lines). Lots of guys hear CNM and sex parties and think, "Rad, I get to f**k all the time and this is great." Then they see the reality of what CNM is, and they want to monopolize the girl, and the girl isn't interested in that, and she has problems.
The problem is sorting among those books to get to the well-written and relevant stuff.
I like your links. I mean, now that I'm getting used to being disillusioned. They are unusually well-written. I think I'm starting to see a pattern in them: The only really important difference of opinion I can see between you and a fabulously normal person like me is that you seem to see the possibility of companionship between men and women as non-existent. In your writing, the main point of spending time together for males and females is sensual pleasure. From that follows that every male and female should always be trying to get the most sensual pleasure possible through continual self-improvement and through being prepared to switch partners whenever a better deal is around the corner.
I disagree because I believe companionship is much more important than sex. In fact, I think the most important purpose of sex for modern humans is to enhance companionship. I even have a link about it: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/make-sex-useful-again
If people don't seem very interested in increasing their ability to get laid, it could be because they value companionship even higher.
I think there's a reason not many men are into seduction "gaming". Seduction, almost by definition, means sexual (and emotional) manipulation. A man has to be limited in his capacity for empathy if he can regard seduction and the resulting sex as a legitimate and ethical end in itself. I would even say men who can do that with a clear conscience are on the sociopathic spectrum. Even if the number of male sociopaths is as low as 2%, and I've seen higher numbers, they would be hugely over-represented among men aggressively manipulating women. Add another--what?--5% or 10% or even 25% who have weak empathy, and you get plenty of men who are perfectly happy with a love 'em and leave 'em strategy. A man (or woman) who has any moral sense would not consider manipulation of any other human being for purely selfish ends as an acceptable way to interact with others. That's no less true for sex than any other human interaction. BTW, I gave my daughter Neil Strauss's book "The Game" when she was a teenager precisely because I wanted her to know there were men out there willing to use aggressive manipulation to get girls into bed.
So I would add, as an answer to Tove's question about how disillusioned you should be, that aggressive manipulators, which I would consider a form of sociopathy, have always been among us. Thankfully they do not represent all humans, or all males.
>>BTW, I gave my daughter Neil Strauss's book "The Game" when she was a teenager precisely because I wanted her to know there were men out there willing to use aggressive manipulation to get girls into bed.
Great idea. It's too typical that girls need to learn that thing on their own.
There was also a TV series based on the book, which she and her younger brother (also a teenager by then) would watch and laugh over. They thought it was funnier than I did. Maybe it's just that Dads worry about their daughters and the risks they face more than the daughters do, given their inexperience and naivete... Still, notwithstanding the propaganda about "rape culture" at colleges--which is I think a mischaracterization--the other perspective rampant in the culture is that girls should be exactly like the boys. That's the perspective I hoped the book would show her was wrong. (That view on this issue a topic you cover so well, among other things.) It leads to problems which, perversely, end up inflaming the resentments and "rape" allegations on campus that we hear about. So we end up with a schizoid culture on relations between the sexes, and endless confusion.
With almost any book, you can tell whether it's well written within a few minutes, and whether it's likely to be useful or interesting within half an hour. "Or interesting" is important because fiction and poetry often isn't "useful." Feedback from readers so far appears to indicate that https://theredquest.substack.com/p/free-book is useful to many of them.
I'd not say sensual pleasure is *it* for me, but it's a big component, and most guys aren't good at making it happen, and have a severe deficit of it in their lives. Most women have a shortage of attractive, high-status men of the sort they'd like to experience sensual and other pleasures with. Red Quest and similar works help to reduce this gap. The burden of performance is most often on the guy. I'd be happy for things to be otherwise but haven't seen any real movement in that direction, ever.
For most men, it's challenging to learn how to competently and consistently unlock women. School ranges from "unhelpful" to "counterproductive" in this regard.
Different people also want different things at different times.
>Couples who swap tend to have better companionship.
Are you sure about the causality there? Swapping probably requires good companionship.
I have to admit your equation works: Men are lonely and bored and want sex with young beautiful women - young women are lonely and bored and want to be entertained and seduced - if men learn to entertain and seduce young beautiful women, everyone gets less lonely and bored. Logically, it works perfectly.
The part I would like to take away is the preferences of young women. I don't doubt the truthfulness of what you say about them. I was a young women not a very long time ago and I saw that kind of mentality in aquaintances. Technically, you are entirely right that many beautiful young women want men to reward them for their beauty by entertaining and seducing them.
I just think those young women are wrong. That's why I asked if there is no resistance movement among females. I think young women need to be extremely aware that their good looks won't last forever. They will also get old and gray. When they successfully compete against 40-year-old women, in reality they compete against themselves 20 years later. That is just self-destructive. Instead, I think young women should start a self-improvement movement just like some young men have done and try to handle their self-destructive preferences.
The lazy preference to play too much computer games and eat too much junk food is self-destructive for men. The lazy preference to be entertained and seduced by men who have trained for the task is self-destructive for women. Instead, young women need to use their attractiveness wisely and consciously to attain an enormously difficult goal: To commit to men who will want to entertain them a bit also at 45. Falling in the trap to be massively entertained at 23 and not at all at 50 is just stupid. People want different things at different ages. And that is mostly self-destructive.
To my defence, I need to point out that young women are obviously not happy with things as they are. Rates of mental distress has soared among young women during the last decade. I'm sure the young beautiful women feel better and have a good time when they get entertained and seduced by someone who has specialized in making them feel good. But overall, they are on anxiety medication. I think they have very much to win from some self-improvement, also here and now.
This became a bit long, but it gave me an idea how to end my next blog post. Thank you for helping me thinking!
>>Are you sure about the causality there? Swapping probably requires good companionship.
As with a lot of things, I think causality goes both ways (some of both). And maybe there are third causal factors at work, too.
Ppl who thrive in this world also usually have very good interpersonal skills, and that helps.
>>I just think those young women are wrong
That's possible and some do prioritize other things. I've written about some of them, like in https://theredquest.substack.com/p/priorities-and-what-you-bring-to-life . Like I write there, "they're not much discussed among the red pill / seduction / masculinity communities because they're mostly invisible to us."
And as for the guys...
"The guys who are in (basically) happy marriages don't have much to say because they're not out hitting the streets chasing strange puss, and they're not looking for deeper answers after seeing half their incomes diverted to their former spouses, and their former spouses's new boyfriend. The guys who are true players probably have good social skills and gym routines and would find much of the anger and hostility online to be strange and off putting (as I suspect a lot of the red pill / seduction guys are in real life)."
I've come to think a lot of sex / dating discourse is driven by the restless, the unsatisfied, the unreasonable, the outright crazy, the people with bad interpersonal skills, the people who can't compromise effectively, etc. Cause the people who are basically reasonable, monogamously inclined, and family oriented find what they want. And they go build civilization and such. While the lunatics get jobs in the media or spend all day on twitter.
>>This became a bit long, but it gave me an idea how to end my next blog post. Thank you for helping me thinking!
I like your stories about people. I read them as bedtime stories. But I must admit you have planted a new thing to worry about inside me: How many of the people who see me think: "She should have her face done?"
I should really collate all of those stories and put them in a proper order. She was a great chick! Too young for things to work out between us long term, but great.
>>How many of the people who see me think: "She should have her face done?"
Who cares? Your top priority in life is probably not "what do people think of my face?" Your top priority appears to be your kids.
Hm, I haven't read that one. I will.
Your blog is making me seriously disillusioned. How disillusioned should I be? Do you have any idea about how common your views on gender relations are among younger people? Do you know any research about it? Have you made any very approximate estimate of your own?
Respectively: Slightly to moderately disillusioned, somewhat (although not super) common, and I don't know how to estimate the commonness. A fair number of teen guys appear to like Andrew Tate right now, despite him being a clown and a fool, which may indicate that there's something not going right with the mainstream educational views on sex and gender.
There seems to have been a larger seduction-skills scene in the 2006 - 2015 time period, but that mostly seems to have gone away. Whether that makes you more disillusioned or less is up to you.
The number of guys who actively study and consciously improve their seduction skills appears to be small, FWIW: https://theredquest.substack.com/p/most-guys-dont-care-much-about-getting-laid-i-hypothesize.
The free book I wrote about consensual non-monogamy hasn't exactly been a rocket ship, so I suspect that doing CNM hasn't and isn't likely to prove popular in the short term. On the other hand, compared to two or three decades ago, it's much more popular, so the timeframe in question might matter.
>Whether that makes you more disillusioned or less is up to you.
I'm not sure, actually. But I can always find something to get disillusioned with.
I read Freddie DeBoer's book about writing a book and he said it is nigh on impossible to market anything without a literary agent. So maybe you just lack a literary agent.
Do you have any idea about any female counterpart to your movement? If I were on the market, I wouldn't like the prospect of men "gaming" me. Do you know of any corresponding attempts of organizing from females who want dating to be effective from their perspective?
Oh, it's a book that no conventional publisher would touch, ever. It's way too incendiary. Fortunately we live in a world of Substack and Amazon. I've learned a lot from self-published books in this field, however rough many of those books are, and however crazy some of their writers are.
Re: female counterparts, women, particularly on the younger side, tend to have challenges different than guys: for a lot of women, the game is about getting commitment from a higher-status guy. For a lot of guys, it's about getting with a woman at all (a topic explored in more detail at https://theredquest.substack.com/p/game-or-relationship-levels-different-for-men-and-women ... apologies for the bunch of links, but one virtue of having written a lot is the ability to point at that writing, instead of leaving a trail of incomplete, half-baked thoughts).
So the corresponding female issues appear almost everywhere: back in the day, magazines like Cosmo. Today, female dating podcasts, romance novels, etc.
More women appear to be interested in aspects of consensual non-monogamy than were 15 or 20 years ago, which is a change. Women often appear to have a harder time getting guys to do CNM with them than guys do (I've heard a lot of stories along these lines). Lots of guys hear CNM and sex parties and think, "Rad, I get to f**k all the time and this is great." Then they see the reality of what CNM is, and they want to monopolize the girl, and the girl isn't interested in that, and she has problems.
The problem is sorting among those books to get to the well-written and relevant stuff.
I like your links. I mean, now that I'm getting used to being disillusioned. They are unusually well-written. I think I'm starting to see a pattern in them: The only really important difference of opinion I can see between you and a fabulously normal person like me is that you seem to see the possibility of companionship between men and women as non-existent. In your writing, the main point of spending time together for males and females is sensual pleasure. From that follows that every male and female should always be trying to get the most sensual pleasure possible through continual self-improvement and through being prepared to switch partners whenever a better deal is around the corner.
I disagree because I believe companionship is much more important than sex. In fact, I think the most important purpose of sex for modern humans is to enhance companionship. I even have a link about it: https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/make-sex-useful-again
If people don't seem very interested in increasing their ability to get laid, it could be because they value companionship even higher.
I think there's a reason not many men are into seduction "gaming". Seduction, almost by definition, means sexual (and emotional) manipulation. A man has to be limited in his capacity for empathy if he can regard seduction and the resulting sex as a legitimate and ethical end in itself. I would even say men who can do that with a clear conscience are on the sociopathic spectrum. Even if the number of male sociopaths is as low as 2%, and I've seen higher numbers, they would be hugely over-represented among men aggressively manipulating women. Add another--what?--5% or 10% or even 25% who have weak empathy, and you get plenty of men who are perfectly happy with a love 'em and leave 'em strategy. A man (or woman) who has any moral sense would not consider manipulation of any other human being for purely selfish ends as an acceptable way to interact with others. That's no less true for sex than any other human interaction. BTW, I gave my daughter Neil Strauss's book "The Game" when she was a teenager precisely because I wanted her to know there were men out there willing to use aggressive manipulation to get girls into bed.
So I would add, as an answer to Tove's question about how disillusioned you should be, that aggressive manipulators, which I would consider a form of sociopathy, have always been among us. Thankfully they do not represent all humans, or all males.
>>BTW, I gave my daughter Neil Strauss's book "The Game" when she was a teenager precisely because I wanted her to know there were men out there willing to use aggressive manipulation to get girls into bed.
Great idea. It's too typical that girls need to learn that thing on their own.
There was also a TV series based on the book, which she and her younger brother (also a teenager by then) would watch and laugh over. They thought it was funnier than I did. Maybe it's just that Dads worry about their daughters and the risks they face more than the daughters do, given their inexperience and naivete... Still, notwithstanding the propaganda about "rape culture" at colleges--which is I think a mischaracterization--the other perspective rampant in the culture is that girls should be exactly like the boys. That's the perspective I hoped the book would show her was wrong. (That view on this issue a topic you cover so well, among other things.) It leads to problems which, perversely, end up inflaming the resentments and "rape" allegations on campus that we hear about. So we end up with a schizoid culture on relations between the sexes, and endless confusion.
With almost any book, you can tell whether it's well written within a few minutes, and whether it's likely to be useful or interesting within half an hour. "Or interesting" is important because fiction and poetry often isn't "useful." Feedback from readers so far appears to indicate that https://theredquest.substack.com/p/free-book is useful to many of them.
I do like companionship with women... but I really like sex, too. The sex makes the companionship better. Couples who swap tend to have better companionship, https://theredquest.substack.com/p/couple-to-couple-dating-mechanics-and-keeping-a-texting-roster-for-sex-clubs
I'd not say sensual pleasure is *it* for me, but it's a big component, and most guys aren't good at making it happen, and have a severe deficit of it in their lives. Most women have a shortage of attractive, high-status men of the sort they'd like to experience sensual and other pleasures with. Red Quest and similar works help to reduce this gap. The burden of performance is most often on the guy. I'd be happy for things to be otherwise but haven't seen any real movement in that direction, ever.
For most men, it's challenging to learn how to competently and consistently unlock women. School ranges from "unhelpful" to "counterproductive" in this regard.
Different people also want different things at different times.
>Couples who swap tend to have better companionship.
Are you sure about the causality there? Swapping probably requires good companionship.
I have to admit your equation works: Men are lonely and bored and want sex with young beautiful women - young women are lonely and bored and want to be entertained and seduced - if men learn to entertain and seduce young beautiful women, everyone gets less lonely and bored. Logically, it works perfectly.
The part I would like to take away is the preferences of young women. I don't doubt the truthfulness of what you say about them. I was a young women not a very long time ago and I saw that kind of mentality in aquaintances. Technically, you are entirely right that many beautiful young women want men to reward them for their beauty by entertaining and seducing them.
I just think those young women are wrong. That's why I asked if there is no resistance movement among females. I think young women need to be extremely aware that their good looks won't last forever. They will also get old and gray. When they successfully compete against 40-year-old women, in reality they compete against themselves 20 years later. That is just self-destructive. Instead, I think young women should start a self-improvement movement just like some young men have done and try to handle their self-destructive preferences.
The lazy preference to play too much computer games and eat too much junk food is self-destructive for men. The lazy preference to be entertained and seduced by men who have trained for the task is self-destructive for women. Instead, young women need to use their attractiveness wisely and consciously to attain an enormously difficult goal: To commit to men who will want to entertain them a bit also at 45. Falling in the trap to be massively entertained at 23 and not at all at 50 is just stupid. People want different things at different ages. And that is mostly self-destructive.
To my defence, I need to point out that young women are obviously not happy with things as they are. Rates of mental distress has soared among young women during the last decade. I'm sure the young beautiful women feel better and have a good time when they get entertained and seduced by someone who has specialized in making them feel good. But overall, they are on anxiety medication. I think they have very much to win from some self-improvement, also here and now.
This became a bit long, but it gave me an idea how to end my next blog post. Thank you for helping me thinking!
>>Are you sure about the causality there? Swapping probably requires good companionship.
As with a lot of things, I think causality goes both ways (some of both). And maybe there are third causal factors at work, too.
Ppl who thrive in this world also usually have very good interpersonal skills, and that helps.
>>I just think those young women are wrong
That's possible and some do prioritize other things. I've written about some of them, like in https://theredquest.substack.com/p/priorities-and-what-you-bring-to-life . Like I write there, "they're not much discussed among the red pill / seduction / masculinity communities because they're mostly invisible to us."
And as for the guys...
"The guys who are in (basically) happy marriages don't have much to say because they're not out hitting the streets chasing strange puss, and they're not looking for deeper answers after seeing half their incomes diverted to their former spouses, and their former spouses's new boyfriend. The guys who are true players probably have good social skills and gym routines and would find much of the anger and hostility online to be strange and off putting (as I suspect a lot of the red pill / seduction guys are in real life)."
I've come to think a lot of sex / dating discourse is driven by the restless, the unsatisfied, the unreasonable, the outright crazy, the people with bad interpersonal skills, the people who can't compromise effectively, etc. Cause the people who are basically reasonable, monogamously inclined, and family oriented find what they want. And they go build civilization and such. While the lunatics get jobs in the media or spend all day on twitter.
>>This became a bit long, but it gave me an idea how to end my next blog post. Thank you for helping me thinking!
Looking forward to reading it.
I like your stories about people. I read them as bedtime stories. But I must admit you have planted a new thing to worry about inside me: How many of the people who see me think: "She should have her face done?"
You might like my stories about "Ms. Slav," who is the last woman I went "all in" with in sex parties and clubs, https://theredquest.substack.com/p/ms-slav-party-night
I should really collate all of those stories and put them in a proper order. She was a great chick! Too young for things to work out between us long term, but great.
>>How many of the people who see me think: "She should have her face done?"
Who cares? Your top priority in life is probably not "what do people think of my face?" Your top priority appears to be your kids.