I’ve created a new post category of Mindwank. This one belongs there.
Dealing with women is often a pain in the arse. As men, our hormones compel us to seek out and try to fuck hot women. We develop our brains, create wealth, build bridges, develop art. We pacify nature and then build civilisation on top of it. Women, on the other hand, mostly just stand around, occasionally moving their womb from one place to another. In the interim, they bitch and moan.
Believe it or not, this is a perfect state of affairs. Without it, we wouldn’t have civilisation. We wouldn’t have feather duvets to sleep in, hot water showers to wake us up, or rich aroma coffee to properly wake us up. We owe our entire quality of life to women being stubborn lazy bitches and men being overly addicted to the slightest whiff of pussy.
Women are the problem and men are the solution.
Or, more correctly for seduction, women set the puzzle and the rewards go to the men who figure out the puzzle. If you can figure it out then – by default – you are worthy of the rewards. And if you can’t, then your DNA is worthless to the future of humanity. In this sense it’s factually correct to say that a man can be judged by whether hot women want to fuck him. It becomes more complicated when you consider how the puzzle is solved. To get this straight you have to understand the difference between totalitarianism and freedon, between dead and living, between Call Of Duty (single player) and Metal Gear Solid Phantom Pain. Yes, I warned you this is mindwank.
Think of how a CoD campaign works. You begin with a flashy opening scene of some bad guy fucking stuff up and giving you a goal (kill bad guy). You step into the shoes of a voiced cookie-cut character and then play a game of “follow the NPC”. Your HUD comes up and you are taken through a quick tutorial of “press L to sprint”, “press X to climb” etc and then the next six hours are one long corridor with periodic duck shoots. In gaming parlance we say it’s “on rails” because the game has decided what experience you will have and micro-managed it down to a series of set piece skirmishes. It’s like watching a movie and occasionally pressing X.
It’s fun but hugely contrived and limiting. Your character can’t vault over the low walls that form the boundaries of the playable area. You have to clear the area before the NPC will kick open the door to the next skirmish – a door that your character couldn’t open despite holding an RPG and several cakes of C4.
MGS:PP is an entirely different type of modern military shooter campaign. It relies upon “emergent gameplay”. That means it sets up the rules of its world, introduces you to a set of mechanics (e.g. how to sneak, how to aim), gives some objectives and then….. just leaves you to it. Go anywhere, do anything. Some enemy bases are too tough until you’ve researched better tech but you could still try to infiltrate them. Not a wise move, but you’re allowed to try. The real beauty of MGS:PP is that is never tries to get you back on track. You can sneak in or try all guns blazing – the enemy AI reacts accordingly by its own rules. Or you can sneak, say “fuck this” and start blazing. Usually pandemonium breaks out but it all follows the rules. The game doesn’t even force you to complete the objective – you might be tasked to steal a blueprint but you can just blow up their helicopters instead. You won’t get the set mission reward but you’ll still progress something.
In this sense CoD is a totalitarian, dead game. MGS:PP is a freedom-loving alive game. Both have their place depending upon your mood. Interestingly, CoD multiplayer is closer to MGS:PP in its role as a rule-bound sandbox that doesn’t try to dictate your actions.
This same tension between totalitarianism and freedom can be seen in political ideology. A philosophy teacher once said to me, “Nick, either you want people to be controlled or you don’t. That’s all it really comes down to.” I agree. One set of ideologies are designed to lock people down and control their daily lives – such as Planned Economies of the Marxist variant, or the thought- and speech-policing of our modern day SJWs. Other ideologies set up some mechanics and rules, then let you play in the sandbox.
The jocular saying is that, in England, “everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so “everything which is not allowed is forbidden”. This may be extended to France — “everything is allowed even if it is forbidden” — and Russia where “everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed”. While in North Korea it is said that “everything that is not forbidden is compulsory”
It’s the first and last which represent the extreme difference between freedom (England) and totalitarianism (North Korea). At least before Labour won their first election in my country. Once you look for it you see it everywhere. For example in martial arts you have the alive ones which set rules of illegal techniques and ways to win, then let you figure out your own answers – boxing, wrestling, BJJ, judo, sambo. Then you have the dead ones which tell you exactly what moves you must do and have judges score you on how well you do it – basically figure skating not fighting.
Now let’s pull this back to women and game.
Evolution is a freedom-based system. Nature sets rules on what is forbidden (death without reproduction) and then it’s a free-for-all for who can game the reward system to consume energy and stay alive long enough to pass on the blueprints. Pre-Darwin, philosophers couldn’t get their head around it. They thought each species had a prescriptive role like a citizen in North Korea allocated to either an office or the salt mines. Consequently their philosophical systems tended to be very large rulebooks as they tried to outline what script each role followed.
There is no spoon.
Underlying freedom vs totalitarianism is a meta-level world view. Is the world a chaotic, ever-changing river or is it a fixed immutable rock? Capitalists believe the former and thus wealth is something that is created anew every day and the economy is a shifting array of preferences and alliances where you can strike it rich and then blow it all. They want to learn how to swim in the river and take advantage of changing currents. Communists believe the world is static and there’s a big pot of wealth out there in the world, that people and circumstances have no feedback loops, and once you establish a position you’ve got it forever. They want to climb up the rock and then sit on their preferred ledge forever.
As the wildly divergent fates of capitalist and communist nations shows, the communists are dead wrong. The UFC proved the dead martial arts were dead wrong. They are fighting nature every step of the way, demanding that the tide doesn’t come in. So it is with women and game.
Nature has decreed that women will be the puzzle and as men we must solve it. Nature does not hand us a script micro-managing how that must be done. The end justifies the means. If you have a system which gets you the hot pussy, then by default that’s good. It doesn’t matter how noble, clever or just your system is if women keep you locked out of pussy paradise. You failed. You’re wrong.
Throughout the ages, all kinds of strategies have worked. Be good-looking. Be rich. Be a victorious army. Be sneaky. Be a rapist. Be charming. As far as Nature is concerned, tying a woman up and raping her until pregnant solves the puzzle just as effectively as charming her knickers off and making her fall in love.
The point is not to give up game and start raping, but to accept that solving the puzzle is the priority. Losing beautifully is still losing. Winning ugly is still winning. To win you need the “freedom” meta-level world view.
Think of pick-up with a nature-based metaphor such as hunting or fishing and you’ll unlock your creativity and puzzle-solving skills.
Think of it like linear-programming and you’ll fossilize, wither and die.
It’s not easy because there’s something comforting about the linear-programming route. You can focus blindly on the process and your inputs, ignoring the shitty outputs. It feels like you have more of the game under your control than is really the case. In the real world, you’ll never control more than 20% of the process. The vast majority of factors determining if you lay a girl this week are completely outside your control.
“But Nick, Daygame Mastery is extremely micro-managed. Isn’t that a totalitarian system?” a troll cries.
Daygame Mastery is a deconstruction of my game. It says right there in the Introduction: I have written about what I do and what I think about when picking up girls. It’s my system. Other guys do daygame a different way. Mastery outlines the physics and the engineering behind what’s going on and then lays out hundreds of practical examples of how I operationalise the principles into specific actions. Your specific actions will differ, eventually.
Mastery’s examples will guide you through the Imitate and Assimilate phases, where you switch from your previous shitty system to my good system. At some point it clicks and you move into the Innovate phase where you fully grasp the emergent creative nature of solving the Woman Puzzle and figure out your way to play in the sandbox. In that sense Daygame Mastery is like those Prima strategy guides that give you the level maps, bestiaries and tables ranking the stats of all the weapons. When you’re good at the game you just refer back to it, you’re not a slave to it.
Women are a pain in the arse because they are supposed to be. They are the Dark Souls of humanity. And like the game, it often feels like they are stealing your humanity and rendering you hollow. Your job is to overcome the challenge.
November 18, 2015 at 10:31 pm
As Deti says, women bitching is a feature, not a bug.
November 18, 2015 at 10:32 pm
Women bitch about the mice in the house, then men build a better mousetrap.
November 18, 2015 at 10:31 pm
Great observations, and a good metaphor for the thing – or so I assume. I’ll need to pick up MGS:PP, it looks like. I noticed the game design principle before, especially with AC4. There was a story, functionally for introducing new skills now and then, but mostly you could go and do whatever you wanted. If you tried to take on a legendary-level ship before you were ready, your little brig would be matchsticks in a hurry. But you could try. Same with wiping out everyone in a fort instead of sneaking in to grab the plans or whatever. Do what you want. But it hadn’t occurred to me to look at approaches to humanity that way.
November 19, 2015 at 1:41 am
Good article that. Would love to get your thoughts more on how society is constructed and the role of the Beta. You touched on this in your London Real interview but did not expand. Betas get a very hard time in the Mano sphere but I know at least one Beta who is married to a very hot girl. Okay may be Beta bucks and perhaps he only gets to fuck her once a month but he lives in a nice house, drives a nice car and has a hot wife. Yet this is frowned upon in the Mano sphere by supposed alphas who probably live shit lives and are banging a multitude of above average headcases.
Back to society and since we live now in the feminine imperative I think modern Western society is constructed now in such a way to make it easier for women on identifying Alphas. Political correctness, social values stifle most men, makes them effeminate and creates approach anxiety thus basically already ruling them out of selection. He who over comes these obstacles is alpha.
Feminism has rewritten history of course but I always felt women always had the ultimate power as they select who lives and dies and everything we do is in the hope of getting selected – game, fitness, job etc. We are used by these cunning female manipulators to provide, build things, get jealous etc. If you are an attractive woman you have the world at your feet.
Have you read Sperm Wars btw? A great book.
November 19, 2015 at 11:59 am
“Okay may be Beta bucks and perhaps he only gets to fuck her once a month but he lives in a nice house, drives a nice car and has a hot wife.”
An externally referenced business contract which impresses the well, easily impressed. The frowning is justified.
November 19, 2015 at 2:13 am
It seems like with all my gaming in the last 2 years I’ve learned to solve the girls who want bad boys fast sex puzzle. The problem is that I still get other types of puzzles (girls who don’t want fast sex) and I fail to notice it and try to solve it with the same method, Not sure if its bad because I’m failing in closing these types of girls or good since it saves me time and drama since I’m not looking for a relationship.
November 19, 2015 at 2:41 am
AWALT. Good girls vs. bad girls? After being treated like an omega, a beta, and an alpha (not as a closer, but a taste), after being treated beta and alpha by the same women, I think maybe you give the women too much credit for personality. lol If you suppose she is only in good girl mode, that might open up avenues of action, perhaps too costly, and avenues of theory (a future savings and outright means and profit). I figure the sex is cheapest at ovulation and in any event timing of her situation and mode is key to cost control. If you pursue ‘good girl’ to learn female nature and develop skills, I think that could be beneficial. I think the game changes with advancement of decline, so the correct theory in terms of concrete technique will change with time (and place). Krauser gave an interesting rundown on type of game for type of place in one of his W. Bible podcasts. I like to get into the nuances like that. Sounds like you have done great in only two years. What you learn next is your next thing when the time comes. You might be transitioning from a strict cost-control mindset to dabbling with good girl personas for more theoretical insight. If you can tie it all together, you will be smarter about women. My two cents.
November 19, 2015 at 2:21 am
Though an insightful analysis, a fundamental premise is wrong. You can’t technically rape a woman because the woman herself objects. It can be rape only in the man’s world of culture. Women do not have as much power as the post indicates unless we men give it to them. This is decline: ‘we’ have. Sex is not the end-all be-all of a man if we are considering genes+memes evolution. Women are programmed only for genes evolution. (They are animals.) Female sexual resource acquisition is a stepping stone in the rise of civilization and in the pursuit of what I call ‘upper masculinity’. The producer man has his own vag an does more important things than please a liberated but subsidized and politically elevated woman’s hindbrain programming. We have no reliable property rights as producers now and let’s be honest, we aren’t producing a whole lot because that would be casting new pearls before swine. Women are pigs, are trophy hunters in pursuit of the opposite sex, and are liars about love. Doesn’t mean we actually should put up with it when in theory we have all the cards. My point is that pussy is politics and other men are extremely relevant in what works in getting pussy. This woman’s game of seduction is inefficient and wasteful of our time and energy and potential. There will come a time when a Western woman’s feelings will be imposed not cultivated. If we won’t do it, we all know who will. And I never received an answer to a question I buried in another comment. Will the Euro jaunt still be there in a year or two? I am hoping to fix my financial hell and live a little. Not sure what will be left. This game shall pass, but the teaching deserve to be recorded for posterity for sure. There will be other declines.
November 19, 2015 at 6:31 am
In this sense it’s factually correct to say that a man can be judged by whether hot women want to fuck him.
In times past it was much more accurate to say that a man could be judged by whether the family of a hot woman wanted her to fuck him. Young women generally didn’t make mating decisions on their own because their independent judgement (on average) wasn’t very good. But if her father in particular thought he was a good man, chances are he was.
November 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm
I’m not sure you answered the question posed in the headline .. ‘why are women a pain in the arse?’. You explained the system but that isn’t an explanation as to various behaviour mechanisms. The specific behaviours I don’t quite understand are the 1) timewasting 2) attempting to derail any interaction 3) pussy whipping guys once in a relationship [Those are all fitness tests. K.]
November 19, 2015 at 1:28 pm
This is a great article to show the reality. We have to accept it as it is instead of holding on to the loser-positions, which wants everything to be different, to be easier for us. The more you ambrace reality, the better you get along.
November 19, 2015 at 11:05 pm
Brilliant. This is one of the most interesting posts on the internet. Reading it caused me to think of different men I know and their approaches to life and women. If we accept that solving the puzzle i.e reproducing, is the fundamental purpose of life, then a man’s approach to life is his approach to women. Darwin taught us that the most successful “puzzle solvers” are not necessarily the smartest or the strongest. The most successful are the ones who best adapted to their environments. 50 years ago a K-selected man was well adapted to his environment. Today K-selection is a far riskier strategy. Compare the past, where a wife was considered the property of her husband – property he could fuck without her consent (an aspect of English common law only changed in the 70’s) – and where having an income was about as much as you needed to ensure reproductive success, with today. Cuckolding and divorce rape are more prevalent than ever. In Sweden, a country lauded for its economic and sociological success, an estimated 1 in 5 children have a different father to the one they believe is theirs. As journalists, economists and sociologists in the rest of the west have been calling for all to replicate the Nordic model, we might be safe in assuming that many more bastards will be bred. It’s also safe to assume that the value of the K-selection/resource model will slowly die, or at least catch a dreadful cold, with the rise of the Nordic model. Yet many men have not figured out this part of the puzzle. They are late adopters. Clinging to traditional values is dangerous in the modern world. Traditional values were only valuable in traditional times. The modern world needs modern values; R-selected values. Men need to realise that their value system is a process designed to solve the puzzle; men cling to the process but it’s the results which count. As the rules of the puzzle (what women want) are changing so must mens value system change, so must change the design of the process. I think this post ties in well with one of your Womanizer’s Bible podcasts where you discussed getting in touch with the oulaw mindset. Feel Entitled to Younger Hotter Tighter I think it was. I think the most important take away is that a man’s values, when it comes to women, can only be judged by the results he is getting with women and not by any other metric, such as an ethical code. Rape is unlikely to be an effective strategy thanks to abortions and dna police work making it short lived. Everything else is fair game.
November 30, 2015 at 5:12 pm
“Dark souls of humanity” kind of funny steve jabba is still your mate with his betaish braggin and your sexist braggin
January 13, 2016 at 6:10 am
sounds like fucking hookers is winning ugly then
February 9, 2017 at 8:38 am
“Women are the problem and men are the solution.”
what about women as inspiration?