Monday, July 1, 2013
Sex as an Exercise in Seeking Validation
In one of my recent articles I tangentially made the point that guys who want to have sex with a great number of women are mostly driven by validation. They enjoy the thrill of the chase, a sense of novelty, and that women show sexual interest in them. I don't think many men will be able to put himself into a position where the latter is a reality, and the former should quickly lead to frustration if there aren't enough successful encounters. The implosion of the PUA fad is directly related to that. Approaching 1,000 women just for a date is idiotic. But even for those who were fortunate enough to have sex with many women, it's normally just a phase to go through.
While I was primarily writing about the male perspective, I think that the female perspective is largely identical. Think about it: it you only wanted to have sex, you're better off finding a nice girlfriend who enjoys having sex with you. Any guy who is single or only sees women casually will find it very difficult to have sex as often as someone in a committed relationship could. There is no difference between men and women. If she only wanted to have sex, she'd get some guy who turns her on and who enjoys boning her, and that would be it.
If women don't settle and keep chasing dick it's seemingly for two reasons. One is that they believe that there will be someone (much) better out there. They are serial daters, ready to jump ship at a moment's notice. Funnily enough, those women often seem to never be single at all. They need to have a "boyfriend" just to feel good about themselves, and while they're seeing someone, they flirt with guys and keep a close eye on the dating market. Who knows, maybe their stocks are rising?
Unfortunately, some women judge badly. Not willing to commit to a placeholder boyfriend, they enter their 30s as comparably unattractive prospects for any guy with options. If a guy is in demand, he'll probably prefer a younger woman over an older one, and not just because of looks. With a woman in her mid-thirties you're getting two decades worth of emotional baggage from failed relationships as a free pack-in bonus, and you might not be too keen on that.
Further, there are those women who lack self-esteem and fuck guys to feel better about themselves. This normally doesn't work so well since the guys who actually can pull-off a one-night stand don't always want to commit, and certainly not just to some random girl they've just fucked. This means that the girls are back at square one, complaining about some guy who pumped and dumped them. I've written before about the myth of the "cock carousel". While manosphere perceptions are quite off, it is not uncommon that women, after meeting a few guys who weren't willing to commit, eventually opt for a guy who can be more easily controlled. This is where the "betas" come in.
Promiscuity can't be explained with high sex drive either. I've mentioned this before, but I'll just point it out again: if you only wanted to have sex, you wouldn't go through the trouble of numerous short-term encounters. So, what's the upshot of all this? In line with my article Who came up with the "sex is the greatest thing in the world" nonsense?, the conclusion seems to be that people who engage in promiscuous behavior do so not primarily because they enjoy sex so much, but because they enjoy maintaining a certain image of themselves. Guys want to view themselves as big studs, and girls as desired. Some of those people who read my book Sleazy Stories commented that I seem to have documented my narcissism. While this goes to far, looking back at that time now, I'm tempted to say that this was probably a significant factor, quite possibly much more than the alleged joy of sex.
What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I absolutely agree.
ReplyDeleteJust as women seek a better male, men also seek better women (if they aren't satisfied).
ReplyDeleteOn another note, PUA's (especially from RSD) are trying to "pump and dump" as many women as possible, in order to develop several skills: the ability to get any woman they want, to eliminate social anxiety, become more confident, and improve their social skills.
These are all valid reasons, except getting any woman they want, because it's impossible. They have to play the numbers game, and they delude themselves in thinking they are going for the skill, when in fact, they are constantly seeking validation.
Can you debunk this myth?
I disagree. If anybody always sought for something "better", then nobody would ever commit. On the other hand, if you are happy with your boyfriend/girlfriend, then you've got no reason to look for someone new.
ReplyDeletePUAs claim that they want to "pump and dump", but in reality they get so little action that they're glad to fuck some random fattie. Just look at Jeffy from RSD, for instance. Also, getting women has very little to do with social skills.
Well, no. You make the invalid assumption that it is always possible to seek something better. At a certain age people realise that unless they commit, they will end up with someone worse. Hence why people rarely commit in their teens but do so before their looks decline dramatically. Most confident men will be promiscuous, improve their abilities and seek better whilst they still can. It's only natural. PUA speeds up the process.
DeleteAs for your second point, a distinction is necessary. True, most PUA's are simply desperate nerds who are wanting *some* social skills to just get *a *girl. However, these are by definition not the subject of your article, as you talk of the relationship between promiscuous people who do have lots of casual sex and validation. There are a select number of genuine 'players', who are socially well equipped who are promiscuous and successfully so. These are the guys you are talking about when you talk of seeking validation through sex.
Also, getting women has very little to do with social skills.
ReplyDeleteAlekNovy has been strongly arguing the opposite for some time now, I take it you disagree with him Aaron?
I don't think that Alek and me necessarily disagree. What you should be aware of is that "social skills" apply to much more than just interacting with women. You could be the most socially competent guy on the planet, but those skills alone won't be enough to seal the deal.
DeleteIt depends on your definition of "social skills".
DeleteI believe any form of interaction with one or more person falls in the realm of social skills. You could even call it interpersonal skills.
Part of these skills is to be able to:
1 - spot that a girl is available to approach, follow your escalations, getting horny etc
2- Know when she is not available to approach, follow your escalations, getting horny
These are just gained through experience, through watching others interact as well.
An extra if you want to date, or have relationship (boyfriend/girlfriend)
3- Know how to communicate verbally (this is massive, and this takes time and easily developed through being social, having friends, and doing group activities)
The rest is just mental masturbation
cani
Fair enough. Alek really talks of "dating skills", not social skills per se. So general social skills might mean little, but if you specifically lack dating skills - knowing how to read signals, knowing when and how to escalate, etc - then your chances are harmed.
Deleteit is all semantics really...
DeleteI believe that dates are just being social, hence the need for social skills.
The other skills, you could call them sexual skills, is what you do with girls you are attracted to. But these skills are very natural, all you need is balls and to man up and be decisive and take action. For example, moving closer to a girl, or holding her hand, or caressing her back, or asking her for her number, or tell her to come home with you.
Everyone knows the basics, everyone knows the basics of sexual interaction, you see it everywhere and you hear it from friends, or you observe it from watching two people meet.
It goes:
meet -> get close -> hold hand -> kiss -> caress body (back, arms, legs) -> kiss -> caress sexual parts (breast, vagina, bum) -> go somewhere alone -> have sex
Having social skills to know when there is a green light, or when there is a red light, tells you when to stop or go on. But to go on you have to have the balls and courage.
This is all pretty much explained in Aaron's book - minimal game.
"AlekNovy has been strongly arguing the opposite for some time now"
DeleteWAT!?!?
That's the EXACT opposite of what I say...
Perhaps I might have worded it wrongly once or twice some years ago (I did oversimplify it as "it's just social skills" a few times years ago).
But I clearly remember being very clear and even ranting that it has NOTHING to do with social skills for the past 2 years. Specifically, I got mad at a feminist who said "If you can't get a date, it's coz you lack social skills, so stop being a hermit".
That's actually shaming and defending female laziness, by trying to erase the fact that for MEN social skills are not enough. A woman can have a full sex life by ONLY having social skills, because female laziness and privilege assures she doesn't have to do more than simply be friendly to the guys she likes.
Sure, flirting skills will improve her chances, but they're not necessary if you're female.
If you're male however, the ONLY factor you MUST have and is responsble for 99% of your results is "escalation skills", basically knowing when to make what move, and how.
You can be the most asocial hermit, and still get laid a ton if you go out and escalate. You can be the most social guy on the planet and be a 40 year old virgin (not likely, since in 40 years at least a few chicks would have made the moves on a super-social guy, but you get the point).
Social skills only help in lowering the rejection ratio. The better your social skills, the more women you'll know, and women you're "social" with will be more clear in showing interest, so being very social gives you more "leads", but still, you have to convert those leads.
The conversion is what gets you laid, not the lead creation. Think of being social as getting leads. You can have zero leads and still sell insurance if you call a 1000 random people, make sense?
You can be the most asocial guy on the planet with zero friends and still get laid if you approach a 100 random women and escalate. Make sense?
Strong agree. I was motivated by validation primarily. The second motivation was experience, specifically, building confidence and competence so that I could pull a better woman one day for a relationship. The results are a very mixed bag, to put it generously.
ReplyDeleteThe validation is sort of there I guess, in the sense that I no longer feel like I'm a freak if I'm not pulling a new girl every month. But after 3 or 4 months? Even if I'm consciously taking a self-imposed break, I start getting nervous. And whenever I see a happily married couple (an admitted rarity in modernity) all my notches don't seem to matter, especially when they're pushing around a stroller.
As for confidence and competence... Well I'm more confident now, but I'm also older, wealthier, and generally not the complete basket case that I was when I was younger. So it's not clear to me that this confidence boost is a result of getting laid in particular.
Competence is the big loser. Optimizing your life for the most newest "hottest" pussy is not a terribly transferable skillset. I doubt it helps at all for courting a decent woman for marriage. Although it has made me a better salesperson, both because of the transferable skill, and because boozing and schmoozing with clients is frequently well complemented by effectively hunting down random tail.
I will say that through all of this PUA and promiscuity dumbfuckery I did have the post-modern gender-egalitarian scales knocked off my eyes, and that's a good thing. Not that I'm a paragon of masculine virtue, but at least I'm now aware of the concept, as well as its feminine counterpart. I don't know how else I would have figured that out without said dumbfuckery - the only possible way this could all be defended as somehow worth it, IMO.
--Mencken
The post is very accurate, and it does apply to people who often young, but mainly those who are immature. People without a purpose in life. They want to conquer, to feel great, to feel big, to one up on their social group. So sex is an easy way to do this.
ReplyDeleteOr they feel they are missing out, falling for the hype of the advertisers, or tall stories of their friends.
Or maybe it is the idea, that people want what they never had. So most guys who
OR they just want to show off on the pua forums. But it is disguised as helping others through learning from them. Or if you work as a PUA, to make money off people, by showing their so called skill that they can sell.
Eventually, they get bored, or find something worthwhile, which is worthy of investing their effort with their meagre time on this earth.
You can say the same for most women, yet most never lose the sense of want to feel wanted, to feel desired, to feel sexy, not just by any man, but by joe stunner.
otherwise, we would have women not caring about their looks, the cosmetics industry would fall etc. Maybe thats why most adverts that play to women's needs to be attractive or desired.
As most women, can't really stay committed to something like a purpose (change careers constantly, change boyfriends, change shoes) as there is always something better, shinier, fun. how can we expect women to stay committed to a marriage unless there is some form of meaningful consequence to stay in it?
From what I see, most women want to have the whole cake and eat it, not believing their are limitations, until it's too late, and then they moan all day long.
What if having sex for validation is a good thing? I mean after few seemingly irrelevant encounters you know what you can or cannot do and based on that you can choose your sexual strategy for the rest of your life. How would you know your limits without stretching yourself?
ReplyDeleteDo you think you'll still be chasing tail when you're 60 or 70?
DeleteNo. I meant that people are doing this while they are in their prime to know what they can get out of their life.
DeleteOh, sure, this I agree with. I think guys who never pursued women don't even know about their market value. You sometimes see this when some handsome and accomplished guy ends up with a dog of a girlfriend because she forced himself upon him and he has never experienced that he could get women of a much higher caliber.
DeleteI am looking for new attractive girls for as long as I live. Even until I am 60 or 70. Just like some older playboys like Hugh Hefner, Jack Nicholson, J. Howard Marshall did. I have to use more money for sure but if I cannot get new girls suicide is good option.
DeleteAaron, I'll have to disagree with this post in the sense that I think it's an oversimplification...
ReplyDeleteLet me illustrate by painting a simple scenario...
- Imagine you had a magical button. This is a button that when you press it, you can have any model, pornstar or celebrity in the world... magically appear in your bedroom, naked, horny and completely lusting for you... She wants to ravish you right then and there when she appears...
- Imagine also that NOBODY will know you had sex with any of these women, just you.
Are you telling me you would not press that button multiple times a day, and only have sex with your wife? Seriously?
Doesn't this thought experiment tell you something? In the scenario I paint, there's no validation to be gained, nobody will know (no bragging rights), and you did nothing to "get" these chicks except press a button... yet you'd still press the button, multiple times a day... Any guy would...
I agree with your post in its entirety, and fully... but, only if we are making ONE assumption
If the assumption is that getting laid with a new hot chick takes a lot of effort, then everything you wrote is correct.
The only reason someone would bare with putting a ton of effort and work to get laid with different partners - is satisfying the ego, validation etc...
In other words, the claim "men only want to get a ton of notches because of validation" is true only if the assumption is that getting a notch involves a lot of work.
Ghenghis khan, rockstars (etc) who had thousands of partners, sure didn't need any validation. But they took what was thrown at them (thousands of different chicks) and they never got bored of it...
I also sense your opinions might be biased by your personal experience. You went through your promiscious period (lots of partners in short timeframes) doing cold approaches and getting them off of strangers, right?
I'm guessing you might be ascribing a lot more effort to the act of getting a new chick than I.
For example I get pussy thrown at me, and I got all my lays by: being rich, popular, buff and having humongous social circle with celebs, models etc. So for me getting laid nowadays is nothing more than saying yes to a chick throwing herself at me. All I have to do is throw in some eye-contact and ask her place or mine. That's it. I don't have to approach, I don't have to experience rejection. No effort.
(the irony is thick isn't it? I'm the guy who rants the most online about female laziness and passivity, yet in my own personal life I'm one of the 0.1% of guys that women aren't lazy with, but I know what effort I had to put in to get to be one of the guys at the top that gets this. It's hierarchical. By definition only 1-2 guys can be at the top of a niche...)
...part 1 end
Alek,
Deletehaving sex with a new girl was about as difficult for me than it is for you and your pals, and the same was true for the guys I hung out with back then, i.e. girls who cannot wait to get laid. All it took was leaving the club with them or taking a detour to a bathroom stall.
Let me tell you another analogy: let's say you can eat chocolate whenever you want. All it takes is going to the fridge. You open the door, reach in, and grab another piece. Does this mean that you'd spent all your days eating chocolate, even if you really like it?
As I recently said in another comment, it's relatively pointless to look at extreme outliers like Genghis Khan or Gene Simmons to make deductions about the general population. But in the case of Genghis Khan, his main motivation wasn't sex, but spreading his semen far and wide. Sex was just a means to an end for him. (Genghis Khan might be the man with most direct descendants in all of history.)
Let me tell you another analogy: let's say you can eat chocolate whenever you want. All it takes is going to the fridge. You open the door, reach in, and grab another piece. Does this mean that you'd spent all your days eating chocolate, even if you really like it?
DeleteFaulty analogy. The discussion was about variety, not "all day, every day".
THE IRONY of bringing up this example is that I just got home from a trip to a specialized supermarket where I bought THIRTY different types of chocolate sweets.
I regularily make new trips all over the city, and import tons of chocolate from countries I travel to, because I LOVE to always try and sample new types and varieties of chocolate sweets.
I don't eat "chocolate all the time, every day, all day", in fact I eat only about 400 cals worth every other day, a little bit from this one new flavor, a little bite from this other new flavor (most of it goes to trash, I just need to sample a bit of each). I LOVE SAMPLING new flavors and brands and types. I've sampled hundreds and imported hundreds over the past 15 years. I never get bored of wanting to try and find new types.
You're saying if someone loves chocolate, they'd be fine with eating the SAME CHOCOLATE PRODUCT EVERY TIME That would be the equivalent to your claim that secure guys are just fine with having sex over and over and over and over and over again with the same wife/girlfriend. Eating the exact same bar any time you feel a need for sweets, eating the exact same flavor from the exact brand in the exact same serving. WHAT?
having sex with a new girl was about as difficult for me than it is for you and your pals
I doubt it. No matter how good you get at cold-approaching, the feeling of "ease" and effortlessness never comes CLOSE to that of being a high-status guy and having women approach YOU, show interest FIRST, and make moves FIRST.
All it took was leaving the club with them or taking a detour to a bathroom stall.
The difference is you had to experience multiple rejections and disinterested girls to get to the ONE girl you describe. No matter how "used" you get to it. Talking to 10 random nobodies, and only getting benefit from one of them does feel like effort, no matter how you slice it. I think 1/10 was a ratio you quote in the book as being a normal ratio of rejections for guys to find one such girl? I'm going off of memory, forgive me if I'm misremembering.
In the context I speak of (high status and having those girls approach YOU, and NEVER ever experiencing rejection or disinterest EVER) - it's different. I've done both your lifestyle (lots of lays from cold) and the high-status popularity/celebrity game and there's just no comparison, I'm sorry, not even close. You haven't felt "effortless" until you've lived this.
You do say one gets used to rejection over time and its no big deal, and that's fine. But one does feel the "effort" and the soul does get destroyed little by little in the back of your mind, no matter how much you might feel it doesn't...
And there's no need to talk about gene simmons. Even small time local city-level rockstars get into the hundreds. As do niche-celebrities. These guys are not extreme outliers. Guys in the thousands are extreme outliers. Guys in the hundreds? Not so much.
And i'm sorry to say they don't fit the profile of insecure guys trying to prove themselves and seek validation or doing it for ego. All they do is not say no to the pussy that's being thrown at them. I don't belive that one is an insecure, validation-seeking chocolate lover because he says yes when factories send him new free samples every day. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. And no, I don't think I'm seeking validation by sampling hundreds of flavors and not getting bored of it...
Would you have variety just for the sake of it? You know, some guys just drink one particular kind of whiskey, for instance. Either way, this discussion seems a bit inane to me. Sex with a stranger just isn't the same as sex with a long-term partner, and on many levels. Sure, you lose out on variety, but you gain in intimacy, among other things.
DeleteSecond, yes, I'm familiar with women showing interest first, and the "humiliating" rejections others describe were foreign to me. To a large degree this was due to my ability to actually read people and recognize interest. The "rejection" normally meant that I wasn't quite feeling the vibe and instead of working on some chick for two hours, just move on and find one who was more enthusiastic about meeting me. Also, I never approached randomly, nor do I recommend others to do it.
Also, don't bullshit me about your "high status game". I've been a brief guest in this world at times. It's certainly not the case that the girls are ready to throw themselves at every single guy in the room. You're competing just as much. Of course, things are different if you're a world-famous athlete or musician, but discussing their fate and how it relates to the problems common guys face would strike me as rather pointless.
In general, though, I don't think there is much need to argue. If you enjoy girls throwing themselves at you left, right, and center, then indulge yourself in it for as long as it lasts.
You know, some guys just drink one particular kind of whiskey, for instance.
DeleteOf course. But you wrote an article that (comes across as) saying that people who like drinking different brands are insecure, and seeking validation.
I'm not saying its wrong to prefer one brand.
I'm actually saying some people can prefer variety without being screwed up. Not every variety-liking person is a psychological nutcase craving validation.
That's all I'm saying...
"Would you have variety just for the sake of it? "
Of course not. I actually agree with you that "variety for variety's sake" is a sign of insecurity and seeking validation. Anyone who makes it a goal and invests time and effort to get variety just for the sake of variety does in fact fit your diagnosis.
I'm just saying your article (perhaps inadvertently) made it sound like anyone who likes/wants variety fits the same diagnosis. I'm saying it's more subtle and nuanced than that.
"Sex with a stranger just isn't the same as sex with a long-term partner, and on many levels."
That's why rockstars have a main girlfriend, and get the variety on the side. One does not preclude the other.
I'm saying it's not that black and white. It isn't that one either gets married and only has sex with their one woman, or they're an insecure screwed up validation seeker hitting on hundreds of women.
There are other shades and combinations and possibilities too, that's all I'm trying to say.
The "rejection" normally meant that I wasn't quite feeling the vibe and instead of working on some chick for two hours, just move on and find one who was more enthusiastic about meeting me.
I am already aware of this, compared to the average PUA, what you did (and outline in your excellent guide "minimal game") is 100 times more effortless, less stressful, and easier than PUA. That doesn't mean that this is the peak of effortlessness.
Yes, approaching 10 women with whom the conversation simply "fizzles out" is no big deal. All you got was "a vibe loss"... no horrible rejections. I get that. But it still feels 100 times more effortful than those women approaching YOU, and them showing interest FIRST and them escalating the vibe...
And some people do enjoy the process. To some people applying your minimal game method does feel like pressing a magical button. People are wired differently biologically...
I think what you're saying can easily be read as saying other people can't have their own experiences and own biologically-wired preferences.
It's certainly not the case that the girls are ready to throw themselves at every single guy in the room.
DeleteI said only the top 1-3 guys in the niche get this. Not only did I not say "every guy", I said the exact opposite.
"Status game" as you call it isn't for everyone, because this is a game where in a group of a 1000 men, the top 3 get all the spoils and 997 get nothing.
Your guide Minimal Game" is for everyone, and everyone can and should use it. I'm not trying to say people should go for status game. I'm only using it as an example that it's "theoretically possible" to have that button from my metaphor. I'm not saying it's realistic. Very few people will be lucky enough to have the right conditions and background to get it. Whereas any guy, anywhere can succeed with minimal game, which is why I recommend it to everyone.
A) Some guys will use your minimal game to get laid 20 times in a year, and then settle down with one woman for life
B) For some guys, they'll love using your minimal game so much, they'll use it for 20 years straight and get 300 lays...
All I'm saying is that the B guys can be completely normal and secure and confident men of character. The difference between A and B can simple be a difference of preference. Some people are just wired for variety. It's an oversimplification to say the B guys are all insecure validation-seeking nutcases...
You're competing just as much.
Of course. But you're competing for status and success and achievement, not women, at least not directly. Some people actually love the process of becoming the best in a field for its own sake.
For example I'm one of the best in my own niche. I LOVE being the best and getting admiration for my success, and I love spending 8-10 hours a day getting better. I'd do it EVEN IF it didn't bring effortless pussy. I'm NOT doing it for the pussy, I just accept the pussy when it gets offered. Make sense?
The same is true of my best friend. He loves being the best and competing to be the best in our little country at the disciplines he's good at - the pussy is just a side-effect.
He does it for its own sake. He's not doing it for the variety of pussy, but he does say yes when its being thrown at him (when his super-hot girlfriend isn't the same room).
Aaron
DeleteYou can't use examples like Genghis Khan and I really don't understand why people would look up to him as an example or ideal. Firstly he passed those so called "male descendants" through war rape and forced sex against their wills. I don't think he is an ideal because he had to pass his male descendants by killing people and of course physically forcing those women to do acts with him without their consents. I never understood why people looked up to the guy at all lol.
As for people like Gene simmons, aside from being an overrated rock star kept alive by pulse machines, he over-saturated and exploited his niche, his short fame and whatever money he had to get what he wanted so he is not a good example either.
Probably just a difference in maturity. Sounds like Alek and his pals have not yet found wisdom and the pointlessness of endless indulgence in sex or chocolate or anything. I used to be like that, then one day you realize the endless chase for new girls doesn't bring satisfaction, and that it's a lack of wisdom to indulge our desires without restraint.
DeleteFailure to impose restraint on one's appetites and desires leads, over time, to weariness and satiety and disgust with the world. But you have to be a bit older and more mature to realize this.
Sounds like Alek is still in the phase where it seems like TRUE satisfaction and happiness is to be found with that new girl, and true chocolate bliss with that bar you haven't tried yet - one day he'll wake up.
The exuberance of his bragging about status and job success, though forgivable, is rather jejune and suggests immaturity as well. Give him time, he'll grow out of it.
I didn't use Genghis Khan as a positive example, nor did I imply that he might be worth emulating. As I said, just like Gene Simmons, he's an extreme outlier with respect to sexual partners (which is a fact), and therefore it's questionable to refer to such people when discussing dating and mating strategies for the regular guy.
DeleteUnderstood, but Genghis Khan's partners in particular were not willing ones but were forced under circumstances that he pushed onto them (pillage rapes, assaults, abductions), perhaps like a street pimp forcing some of his workers to have sex with him because he controls leverage and power over them. He did not get so many partners the actual "natural way".
DeleteI have found that insecure people like to bring up Genghis Khan as a example despite his outlier status, and I thing we both know who does that usually :)
@Khan/Simmons discussion
DeleteNitpicking a few randomly chosen words in a larger text is ussually a sign of missing the point. Feminists are known for doing this.
Forget Khan/Simmons, just two random names dropped in random ranting. There are the thousands of smaller local rockstars in the world, enjoying triple-digit counts. As well as niche celebrities in hundreds of niches, for each of a hundred countries.
Or if you want a name, there's Michael Jordan as another random example. He was obsessed with mastering the craft. He wanted to be the best the sport had ever seen. He didn't do it for pussy, but he did ACCEPT the pussy when it was thrown at him, and even did so while he had a wife.
This is true of most star athletes who are married and always travelling. I do not accept that they are "insecure validation seekers" because they say yes to the groupies coming to their hotel rooms.
@Anonymous
Delete"one day you realize the endless chase for new girls doesn't bring satisfaction"
Notice what I bolded there. You're making the same BUILT IN assumption aaron made in the article.
NOTICE:
"guys who want to have sex with a great number of women are mostly driven by validation. They enjoy the thrill of the chase"
"I think guys who never pursued women don't even know about their market value."
The built-in-assumption or conflation there is that getting new women MEANS to CHASE or PURSUE.
If the article simply said "Men who want to pursue and chase hundreds of women are insecure validation seekers" - then I would agree 100%.
But the article currently effectively says "Michael Jordan and rockstars and tens of thousands of smaller niche celebrities are insecure validation seekers because they say simply say YES to the groupies"
Do you UNDERSTAND my point? I haven't chased or pursued in years. THE VERY IDEA of pursuing a woman DISGUSTS me. I got sick and tired of it years ago. I get a sick feeling just thinking of the idea of ever having to chase pussy for as long as I'm alive. If I had to choose between pursuing and being celibate, I'd choose celibacy, seriously, no really.
Do you not see that we do not disagree? It's just that you equate "getting new pussy" with "chasing pussy".
And no, one doesn't have to be Michael Jordan to have pussy thrown at them. Go and invest 10 years at 4 hours of daily practice in becoming the best punk-rock drummer in (for example) eastern europe or east asia or latin america, and see what happens. In my example I'm of course assuming being the best drummer is fulfilling in and of itself and a worthy fullfilling purpose onto itself, independent of the pussy it brings.
Are you insecure because you say yes to all the groupies when they come by? Are you seeking validation by not saying no? Is being driven to master a craft and be the best you can be "immature"?
@Alek Novy:
DeleteWho has sex more easily? The guy with a live-in gf in a happy relationship, that is one where the girl enjoys sex, or someone doing your kind of "celebrity game"? It seems you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. The guy in the relationship only has to walk up to his girl bend her over and pull her panties down while you still have to dress up and get to the club. Or do you want to tell us that chicks line up outside your office and you only have to open the door and unzip your pants? Seriously, dude! Yes, a single guy in a great position have a chance at having more variety, but that's about it. He won't get laid more easily, and it is far from certain that the women he'll get are better in the sack than a decent gf.
@Anonomynousnousns
DeleteI would ask that if you are going to argue with me that you AT LEAST read my comments in full BEFORE responding
I specifically said all of these guys have a main girlfriend. Again, It's not an either or situation. You're placing a false dichotomy.
All of these guys has a main girl, or several stable "friends" for regularity. I have 2 stable regulars myself, with one being my best friend whom I love more than anything.
Here's what I wrote TWO DAYS ago:
That's why rockstars have a main girlfriend, and get the variety on the side. One does not preclude the other.
I'm saying it's not that black and white. It isn't that one either gets married and only has sex with their one woman, or they're an insecure screwed up validation seeker hitting on hundreds of women.
There are other shades and combinations and possibilities too, that's all I'm trying to say.
You guys are setting up false dichotomies just like PUAs. You're pretending that there are only TWO possible scenarios.
You're setting up a FALSE FORCED CHOICE. The world isn't either/or and a black and white dichotomy. It's not. I'm sorry.
...part 2
ReplyDeleteMy best friend nowadays is a guy who's had hundreds of chicks before turning 21. He's done it by being popular, and high-status in several niches (starting with being the captain of a sports team in high-school, then instructor/trainer in different disciplines), he mostly banged his students and clients, and he has connections in every country in the world in the niche he's in currently. He's VIP in every club in my country, personally has known or worked with every celebrity in my country for the past few years.
He has the hottest girlfriend on the planet right now. She's like the perfect 10 (she's a celebrity), and he's working hard on becoming a celebrity himself right now.
Guess what? He's never gotten bored of getting new notches, and he still bangs the chicks throwing themselves at him. And he sure accepts the chicks that come up to us when we're about (chicks who recognize him from TV). He's more validated out and confident and secure than any human being I've ever met, but he still wants new pussy, and he doesn't seem to be getting bored any time soon.
So I think your article only makes sense in the context of PUA... It explains why someone would be motivated to get hundreds of lays from the soul-crushing, soul-destroying field of cold approaching.
If someone (like tyler dyrden) is motivated to still hit on 30 chicks a night, and get blown out 30 times a night by random nobodies, after years of doing it, then yes, your analysis is probably spot on.
If someone like me, or my friend still accept the pussy that's being thrown at us, (our effort amounts to saying yes), I don't think your analysis applies.
Alek, I would add this: remember the fool's mate idiocy? The validation does not only come from the lay itself, it comes from mastering the "Game". The weirdest thing about the community is that, somehow, it seems to purposefully make it harder to get laid, so that you actually can brag not only about the chick, but also about your mastery of "social dynamics".
Delete@Anonymous on "the fool's mate idiocy"
DeleteYes, that's one of the most damaging concepts in the community, and its the prime way the community creates cult-like devotion.
The community purposefully makes you ashamed of the idea of easy lays or "passive results". Apparently not only do you have to get notches to get validates as a man... According to these bozos a lay only counts as a "true notch" if you earned it with "proper game".
It's the perfect way to get people addicted to always going to new seminars, learning new techniques and the "proper" way to get laid. It's genius cult-like marketing for sure.
I agree with Alex Novy. I have come to know a couple of guys who are actually in the position to remain single with a steady source of sex. They are usually those who work in the entertainment industry, such as promoters, DJs and club managers. Don't get me wrong, they are still handsome, and not just like regular guys.
DeleteA friend from my own university is just like that, the light of party, he is always in the social mood and can become friends of everyone. He cannot simply reject all the invitations that are thrown to him nights he go out. His friends will introduce new girls and new girls, and all he has to do is choose one of them. It is an exaggeration to say he can get girls everynight, but at least he can sleep with 1-4 new girls every month. What Alex describes seems to be like this, though Alex seems also to be even more successful.
Isidia, I think you missed the point of the article. Besides, one to four girls a month is nothing that strikes me as out of the ordinary for attractive and sexually active guys. Give your friends some time, maybe some years, and see how they'll act then.
DeleteI think Aaron is leaving out an important factor, and this is a major one for me. Even putting aside the validation factor, I have a thirst for variety. I love all types of women, black, white, Latin American, Asian, brunette, redhead, thin, curvy, tall, short, large breasts, small breasts. Every beautiful woman is like a piece of living art work to me and I want to experience her in every nasty way imaginable. I want to know what her hair smells like, how she moans when she's getting fucked. Every woman is a somewhat different experience and that's what I find fascinating about fucking different women. The fresh experiences and my thirst for variety.
ReplyDeleteHow many women have you had sex with? I've heard claims like yours from quite a few PUAs, and they all had abysmally low success rates.
DeleteWhat if Alek Novy is just a troll?
DeleteI had sex with about 120 girls. I still want more and new variety and this desire probably will never end.
Delete@Alek,
ReplyDeleteIn the other post you support Aaron when he says sex isn't that great. Now you are saying that endless variety of something that isn't that great to begin with is highly desirable?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
If something isn't that special it would seem we would not be motivated to seek out many varieties of it. And however effortless each new notch, there is always some level of time investment and minimal social effort.....for something we don't care very much about?
I'd say the reasoning here is sound, but it's a matter of another crucial perspective, though. If - as a man - you have a different mission in life and different core interests (as focus points of your mental and bodily energies) other than having sex with numerous girls over longer periods of time, then the shallowness of the encounters, the warmth of ego self-gratification and essentially the pure predictability of it all just becomes tedious and quickly loses its appeal.
DeleteTo me women as a whole and female energy itself is not THAT wildly inspiring, as it is commonly hyped to be. And blending oneself with too many different women is tiring and has an aspect of self-deceit, since girls generally aren't as exciting, as they ought to be for the scheme to function properly.
Of course you could say, "Hey, by fucking many different girls well, I'm providing the world with more orgasms, than I'm receiving, so I'm actively making the world a better place!" - but even this benevolent approach doesn't carry too far on its own, because the
But on the other hand, if - as a man - you have no problems with all of those aspects, but you enjoy it, then you do and of course then you don't get tired of it.
As for myself, I get terribly bored rather quickly with most females, even when I didn't have sex with them. So, no matter whether she conforms perfectly to certain models of beauty and poise, a boring and uninspiring Playmate-body girl remains boring and uninspiring and thus not really being worth one's own investment of time, energy and attention.
So that's just my 2 ct. …
Also, methinks… just the fact of making women or the constant desire for them the main purpose of our available time is somewhat strangely stupid and ineffective.
DeleteWe as men can achieve and aspire to much greater/exciting/satisfying things in life, than getting our dicks into female pussies (which IS cool of course…)
I quite enjoyed your latest blog posts, Sleazy. I agree that validation was an important driving force when I first got into pickup. However, after a while, the validation and emotional high I received from sleeping with a new girl starting dying down. I think this is something which happens to most guys who have been with a certain number of women in their life. These days it's hardly about validation for me but either finding a girl attractive and enjoying the "thrill of the chase" or having a girl throw herself at me and thinking "Why not."
ReplyDeleteWhen sexual deprivation is the norm for men, and abundance the status symbol, it's rather insulting to bash men for being affected by such clear messages that their worth is determined by their sexual attractiveness... particularly when this is THE standard for women, and few insult them for it.
DeleteThis is why men are simply going their own way, and not looking back... no one needs that sort of torture.
If you both generally like each other physically and emotionally why not. In some cases both man and woman can experience many different partners and enhance their life. If your just doing it to validate yourself or to gain some type of skill or confidence bad idea.
ReplyDeleteDo manginas EVER tire of subjecting men to secondary victimization, while absolving women of any social responsibility whatsoever?
ReplyDeleteRhetorical question, I know.
I have to say, Alek Novy must be right in this debate. We are evolutionarily programmed to seek variety- It would have promoted our chances of successful replication. It's as simple as that, case closed. To totally ignore this obvious and, quite frankly, commonly known reason for promiscuity and reduce it to validation seeking seems peculiar to me. Not that validation seeking does not exist in the whole sexual dynamics of society, but it's clearly wrong to reduce promiscuity to that alone.
ReplyDelete"Think about it: it you only wanted to have sex, you're better off finding a nice girlfriend who enjoys having sex with you."
Well, by that logic, rather than go through the effort of finding a girlfriend, you could just have a blow up doll.... Sorry, what? It's not the same??? Bingo. You got it.
You can't equate sex. Equating sex and sexual partners is the same obviously invalid assumption feminists use to justify the ridiculous statement that sexual assault has nothing to do with sex "because if they just wanted sex, they'd go to a hooker". As we all know, we'd do anything for some sex, whilst there is other sex we wouldn't be paid $10,000 to have. Not all sex is equal.