What the blackpill gets wrong. Hypergamy isnt as bad as we think.

[member160292]

It's pay to play dudes.

If you can't afford to pay for her drink, you should prioritize other aspects of your life.

Nothing dries pus more than cheap ass men

 

[SW15]

It's pay to play dudes.

If you can't afford to pay for her drink, you should prioritize other aspects of your life.

I have been doing pay to play. I’ve spent my entire mating career footing bills on dates. I don’t like it but I do it for the notch.

All men pay for sex either directly or indirectly. That’s why men view sex transactionally.

 

[DonJuanjr]

Another issue you have - you think men are born “knowing what to do”. We aren’t.

You state, "if you don't have game, then you don't deserve sex". "Don't go for lower value women, and be celibate while striking out", "All you need to do is buy her coffee, and it's not wasted money, because you'll get sex". These things aren't adding up. How are you going to get sex from the first coffee date, if you strike out, not understanding game, while not giving yourself a chance to learn by going after lower value women? Going poor in the process, so it stops your future attempts due to lack of being able to buy that coffee.

 

[member160292]

@Pan87

You should write up a dating 101 thread and have it stickied
I'd read the sh!t outta it

 

[DonJuanjr]

It all adds up. What your key issue is, is that you don’t like women. They annoy you. This prevents you from understanding how their minds work.

You're partially right, women are annoying in ways, but I don't dislike them. Finances are a relevant part of the equation. Not everyone is financially well off. I don't care if you think poor guys don't deserve sex. It's not going to stop me from trying. I don't live in delusion and think that every date I go on will end in sex. It doesn't seem like you're here to actually help dudes without game learn. You despise betas(those without game) so you're obviously not here to help. I think you're here to show that you know how female minds work to suss out other perceived "alphas" to have a nice wholesome circle jerk.

 

[DonJuanjr]

You’re annoyed because women confuse you.

No, I get it man. They don't confuse me. It's the amorality that's annoying. Though back to your hunting analogy:
If the bait is one time use only, and the hunter sucks, and can barely afford it to begin with, he loses the ability to buy the bait to hunt again. At that point hunting skill doesn't matter since he priced himself out of the sport. Since he's not hunting, he's not learning how to hunt better. Maybe he should have hunted something easier, as any hunting has learning potential, and found a way to minimize bait cost.

 

[DonJuanjr]

The bait analogy is a good one. I presume you have a job and earn an income. I’d say, through apps, you would be able to take out 2-3 girls per week. This means that your earnings need to allow for a budget of 4-6 drinks per week + fuel.

What you do from here is you just keep running them. Every week. Consistency. It’s low cost and you’re getting great experience interacting with women in person. From here you need a Game to get her from venue to your place. This is where plausible deniability comes in. You get her back to your place on a pretext (she knows sex will happen, but it’s a game where she has to pretend she’s not a slvt). If you directly tell a girl you’re going back to your place for sex, then you trigger ASD. So you always have to tell her that you want to show her your guitar or something else.

Once she’s back at your place then it’s over to you.

This sounds good, but in reality as @SW15 suggests, doesn't play out every time. It may take 20 dates to start figuring out nuance enough to increase the success rate. This is $300 minimum wasted just to get good enough to get 1 in 20. So it may be better to at least be observant enough to realize when it's not going to lead anywhere and cut and run, only paying for your drink or coffee. Why do you owe it to the woman to pay for her drink? That's simping.

 

[DonJuanjr]

You are still focused on the cost of failure. 20 failed dates equaling XYZ money and time. Welcome to the Game. There are consequences to losing. There are consequences to “not getting it.” Those consequences are a lifetime of embittering confusion, wasted money and wasted time.

Only if you don't learn when it's not going to lead anywhere, and then cut and run, paying for your drink only.

 

[DonJuanjr]

If they date isn’t going well then you pay for the drinks and politely leave, and don’t look back. It’s your fault the date didn’t go well. She’s done her part - she’s turned up and said “okay, I’m going to give you a chance to turn me on.”

You didn’t turn her on. She made the effort to turn up at your invitation. You paying for her drinks is the least you can do.

Again, why is it "the least I could do"? I thought playing on their level of amorality is a step closer to "getting it" and "dark triad"...

 

[DonJuanjr]

You can at least pay for her drinks.

So... Don't play on their level of amorality in this case? Doesn't that affect the whole mindset transformation of it?

If it really is an issue of your own lack of money (to the point where 2 drinks hurts) then you shouldn’t be dating.

Again, it's not guaranteed that it'll only be 2 drink. It may be 40 drinks(which could be minimized to 20). Maybe I shouldn't date when I'm low income, but it doesn't stop my need for sex. Any man who says "guys who need sex are pathetic" are full of shjt and hypocrites if they are having sex with women. What am I supposed to do then, revert to caveman game? Don't think so....

I'll just operate in an amoral fashion(which you say is good), and cut and run when the situation is conducive to it. I'd rather be dark triad with this, and continue the metamorphosis than stick to some "honor" based system which is ripe for exploitation.

 

[Zimbabwe]

Movie dates in theaters are a terrible idea in the early stages. I thought every man knew that by now and they were discredited decades ago. Established couples do that shiit.

I'm not entirely opposed to activity dates for a first date or second date. For a first date, I'd have to find a common, enjoyable activity in a 5-10 minute conversation. That answer doesn't typically reveal itself in a conversation on an initial approach. It's much more possible for a second date.

It's very difficult to cut bars out of the seduction process entirely. You'll either need them for the initial approach or as a 1st-2nd date hosting venue.

My mindset is that I have activities that I want to do, and I just invite women along to come with. Two birds with one stone, if you enjoy drinking or having coffee then do that.

I'm going to try a Gym date with this girl next week, I already go to the gym 6 days a week so might as well bring her to my next session. Next I'm thinking of a picnic in the park if rhe weather here in Sydney gets better

Also about movies, I don't see what's so bad about it.

 

[member160292]

Way too many men think they are entitled to pus when a girl actually goes on a date with them that the impression they give is turning her off.
2 drinks = bang

That will work on the unattractive women because they were going to F you anyway.
It fails on attractive women who actually have options. Guys are used to catching bait fish from the bottom barrel and expect those same techniques to work on a marlin.

All the content you need is on this forum. We all can bang hotties if we up our game

 

[DonJuanjr]

The simping has stopped.

Apparently not when it comes to buying a drink due to some white knight notion of honor to the fair lady....

 

[DonJuanjr]

“Not simping” doesn’t translate into be a tight as$hole. That’s the wrong answer.

Being a tight a$$hole is better than a nice guy willing to play into a societal paradigm of exploitation, when he's not nuanced enough to get success before 10+ cheap dates.

 

[DonJuanjr]

If you invite a woman out on a first date, then you pay. That’s logical and fair.

I thought dating/mating wasn't about "fair", but winner takes all....

 

[BeExcellent]

So what I gain from this comment and your previous comment of "If he doesn't offer to pay, It leaves me unimpressed" translates to is, if a guy doesn't offer to pay, then you lose attraction, because you don't feel like he's interested in bonding to you due to the lack of interest in financial investment. Either way a guy not offering to pay lowers your attraction towards him. Which is what I proposed to pan.

Correct. I'm very open about this. In the initial stages of an interaction bonding is not really going to occur. But investment builds toward and over time creates a bond. Humans are social critters and have need of emotional bonding. Without it they become damaged and sub-par. It's a natural thing to seek as a human being. So this idea that the desire to bond with another human being is somehow bad is a DAMAGED way of thinking. Refer to other people in this thread.

Let me ask you a question. If you are a top tier man with lots of options, would you choose a woman who is non-compliant, flaky, and difficult to pin down? Would you pick a woman who is not responsive to you and who creates barriers to sex? No. No man with options will choose such a woman.

Why?

Two reasons. 1. Why pick her with all her barriers when you can choose someone else of the same attractiveness level who WILL submit, be compliant and reliable and sexually accommodating??? 2. The non-compliant woman does not feel good to be around. The compliant woman feels good to be around. That is a huge factor!!!!

People (both men and women) gravitate to what feels GOOD. Non-compliance doesn't feel good to a man. Especially not when he can choose another woman with whom he can have a pleasant interaction.

In the same way a woman with many good options has the same sort of choices to make. I have been a woman men compete for all my life. That is the way of things for beautiful, pleasant, sane women who are good company. If I have a dozen or so equally successful, good looking, desirable men to choose from...why on Earth would I pick a cheapskate, who, by not acting as a gentleman and picking up the check for an outing that he initiated, and that I agreed to spend my time doing (at the expense of other things I could have been doing with other people), why would I reward that behavior? Answer: I won't. And neither will any other beautiful desirable woman.

I didn't make the rules but I understand them. I just shake my head at men that expect a high value woman to accept Netflix and chill or a quick drink outing and then expect her to allow you sexual conquest on a first date. That is UNREALITY. Now if she is low self-esteem, just wants a hook up, is a w h o r e, or has few options then understand something. By this set of expectations you guys are screening FOR low value, low quality women! And then you complain about there not being any quality girls out there. Quality girls are like Chads. They do not have to tolerate BS, so they do not. So if you think a quality girl is going to put up with this way of being? Good luck. She's going to pick someone who treats her well and makes her feel special (which a cheapskate does NOT do).

It's honestly very simple. Pick a woman you like who LIKES YOU BACK. If the women you want do not like you back, then you are invisible to them. Figure out why that is or pick a different woman!

 

[DonJuanjr]

Let me ask you a question. If you are a top tier man with lots of options, would you choose a woman who is non-compliant, flaky, and difficult to pin down? Would you pick a woman who is not responsive to you and who creates barriers to sex? No. No man with options will choose such a woman.

I'm not. I'm not a faux "alpha" who's larping on this site. I'm on here as a beginner to game, learning to be a don juan, which means I'm not nuanced enough to know when a woman is pretending to be interested just for the attention and entertainment of doing something. Plenty of men have stated women do this regularly. Also, my lack of game nuance/charm could turn them OFF, and as stated, I don't have the finances to take 20 women on dates with nothing to show for it except sunken costs.

Yet I have the need for sex and sexual bonding, and I'm not willing to resort to rape. So, why wouldn't I leverage the situation to my benefit financially when I am not charming enough to be a sexual prospect to the woman, but nuanced enough to see that she's not interested. Like you said, women don't need men to pay for them. So why would I be obligated to? When I see it's not going anywhere I'll pay for my drink, and cut the date short. Otherwise I may take loss after loss and it adds up taking me out of the dating game, defeating the purpose. Because you're a woman, you don't experience men's reality of "ONE DATE, NO SECOND DATE, NO SEX" time and time again. I'm willing to bet every time you've wanted sex to happen on a date, it happened.

 

[BeExcellent]

I like to think I am more red pill than black pill.

This is an accurate representation of my viewpoint. Yes, I believe that romantic relationships have a shelf life. There was family of origin pain. I have resolved those issues through a difficult process.

The best evidence of the shelf life of goodness of romantic relationships is a divorce. Divorce is rampant. The probability of a divorce occurring over a 40 year period (the likely evaluation period for marrying couples 35 and under) in any marriage is quite high.

When a divorce is filed for, the shelf life of goodness ended a long time ago. The divorce is simply the final step of putting a relationship that effectively ended often years earlier out of its misery.

My parents had a subpar romantic relationship that lasted far longer than it should have lasted. I can’t think of 2 more ill fitting people who lasted as long as they did. They lasted 20+ years. Since I am only 39, I don’t know any 20 year long couples yet but I do know some ill fitting couples coming up on 10 years.

In the United States, the norm is to think of married couples & their duration from the time of marriage, discounting their relational time pre-marriage. I think of couples from the very beginning.

There is a lot of evidence that sexual passion dies over time. I don’t want to stick around a relationship long enough for that to occur.

I greatly appreciate the candor of your response and I understand and relate to the family of origin thing. Divorce is indeed rampant. But great marriages are also quite common. There are men here who came from solid families of origin, and men here who are themselves leading solid families of origin right now. So it's not as though solid LTRs are like four-leaf clovers, they are VERY common in fact. I know dozens...DOZENS of very good marriages!! And guess what? Those are well adjusted people similar to me who are experiencing those quality relationships. I see they exist, I prefer to have a situation like that in my own life. I know young people, middle age people, older people who are happily coupled. It's very cool. These are people who live together, play together, raise families togther and once the kids are grown, play together some more and grow old together!

My future mother-in-law is in such a marriage, my children's grandmother was in such a marriage, I know couples my age, my children's age and in between that are experiencing positive marriages and all its benefits. In my own marriage there was plenty of sexual passion throughout the relationship. This is over 20 years and sex nearly every day. So from my own personal experience I know that passion can indeed last. And I'm not unusual in that regard.

My parents had a strained marriage at best. They split when I was 16. I was quite cautious about getting involved with a man because of what I saw in my family of origin. BUT. I also saw many good, solid successful marriages all around me, so I knew they existed and that that my parent's relationship was dysfunctional...but I did not extrapolate that to mean ALL marriages are dysfunctional. I knew my parents (really my mother) were the problem, not that marriage was the problem.

Too many people here think marriage is the problem as an institution. No. Marriage is only ever as good as the two people who got married. You have two sh1tty people in a marriage? It's going to be a bad marriage. You have 1 awful person in the marriage? It's going to be a sub-par marriage.

This is why the choice of a life partner or marriage partner is one of THE single most important choices a person makes in their life! Some here do not believe in marriage, but that is in some ways a cop out. You don't believe in long term as being viable (you do not think it exists at all) and I'd extend that to say you do not trust yourself to pick a partner who can go the distance in life. It gets back to belief system. You don't believe it so FOR YOU it CANNOT exist. See how that belief robs you?

Digest that logic. I agree you do you and live your own life as you please. But your beliefs are keeping you in a state of disappointment and disbelief.

 

[BeExcellent]

I'm not. I'm not a faux "alpha" who's larping on this site. I'm on here as a beginner to game, learning to be a don juan, which means I'm not nuanced enough to know when a woman is pretending to be interested just for the attention and entertainment of doing something. Plenty of men have stated women do this regularly. Also, my lack of game nuance/charm could turn them OFF, and as stated, I don't have the finances to take 20 women on dates with nothing to show for it except sunken costs.

Yet I have the need for sex and sexual bonding, and I'm not willing to resort to rape. So, why wouldn't I leverage the situation to my benefit financially when I am not charming enough to be a sexual prospect to the woman, but nuanced enough to see that she's not interested. Like you said, women don't need men to pay for them. So why would I be obligated to? When I see it's not going anywhere I'll pay for my drink, and cut the date short. Otherwise I may take loss after loss and it adds up taking me out of the dating game, defeating the purpose. Because you're a woman, you don't experience men's reality of "ONE DATE, NO SECOND DATE, NO SEX" time and time again.

I'm not suggesting you are a faux alpha or something. But I asked the question for you to think about the kind of abundance a Chad has or that a beautiful woman has for you to consider the way a person like that exists. It's comply or BYE Felicia in that world, and it goes two ways.

The way you see whether or not a woman is interested is you watch what she DOES. You pay attention to actions, and disregard words. In doing this you learn to respect your own time, which will build your self respect. Does she fail to communicate or respond? Look for someone else. Does she flake? Look for someone else. Does she make things ridiculously difficult? (some resistance to intimacy is to be expected) If she is over the top difficult look for someone else.

I will tell you men here whose content I HIGHLY recommend: @Glassguy @Serenity @oldmanofthesea @2Rocky @Howiestern @Fruitbat @guru1000 (he's not really active anymore but search and read his posts), @Atom Smasher @Dash Riprock. Each of the men I mentioned are enjoying the fruits of success in their interactions with women. Some are married, some are in LTRs, some are running a rotation.

My own son turns 20 later this month. He is enjoying great satisfaction in his relationship and he understands the red pill as he was raised in a red pill environment. My 18 year old daughter is in a LTR and they are looking long term and planning their lives, quite possibly together for the long haul. And she is still an innocent as far as sex is concerned. I raised my son to lead and my daughters to trust the man they choose to lead them. Read that sentence again.

Pan is correct that the interaction between men and women is indeed learned. Some of us get a better teacher than others and I know you and other men come here to figure those interactions out. The first thing you need to do is be straight with yourself about what your end game is. Once you define your end game, then you can figure out which voices here are best suited to your goals. As Atom Smasher often says, the gold is here if you are willing to look for it.

I wish you every success. Cheers.

 

[DonJuanjr]

I'm not suggesting you are a faux alpha or something. The way you see whether or not a woman is interested is you watch what she DOES. You pay attention to actions, and disregard words. In doing this you learn to respect your own time, which will build your self respect. Does she fail to communicate or respond? Look for someone else. Does she flake? Look for someone else. Does she make things ridiculously difficult? (some resistance to intimacy is to be expected) If she is over the top difficult look for someone else.

This is all well and good, but does nothing to address her losing interest DURING the date. At which point, I have nothing to lose if I can recognize the loss of attraction/interest, and decide to cut and run only paying for my drink, to allow myself to remain financially capable to try again with a different woman.