How Many Times.to.have Sex With.a.girl.blackdragon Blog

Confessions of a Serial Monogamist

May 25, 2015, 5:00 am

A while back, I wrote a post about how serial monogamy is, in most cases, abusive to men, since it's usually women who initiate it and women who terminate it discordantly with the expectations of the men they're dating.

In that post, I posed 11 questions for these man-dumpers to answer. Our very own Kryptokate, an avowed serial monogamist, was brave enough to answer those questions. She was quite brave to be as honest as she was; I gotta give her credit.

Here, I will analyze her answers to get a glimpse into the serial monogamist female mind. Fair warning: this is going to be one of the most depressing articles you will read on this blog, but sometimes we must do this in the interest of education and self-improvement. Many of you guys will be extremely surprised to learn what is going through women's minds.

My original questions will be in italics, my analyses will be in normal font, and Kryptokate's responses will be in blocked quotes. I have edited some of her statements for brevity. You can view the entire thing in the comments at the linked post above.

She starts:

I'm in my late 30s and have spent my life since age 16 going from one boyfriend to the next with basically zero time in between and every man I've ever been with has fallen madly in love with me, so those are my credentials.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when describing serial monogamy. Man and woman get monogamous, man falls head over heels in love with woman, everything is fine during NRE, then suddenly woman dumps man, man feels terrible, and woman quickly moves on to the next man. Serial monogamy. It's evil. As such, I'm going to be brutal. Get ready.

Note that in her responses, she uses my original nomenclature for Alpha Males. So when she says "Alpha" she means Alpha Male 2.0. When she says "Needy Alpha," she means Alpha Male 1.0.

Now for my questions and her answers:

1. At the beginning of the relationship, when these innocent beta males fall in love with you after having sex with you two or three times, do you explain to them that you'll be dumping them in a few months (or a year or two at the most)?

This depends on what kind of guy they are. If they're betas, no, of course not. It would be incredibly cruel and they will be horribly hurt and devastated. Since I have empathy, I can't tolerate that.

So in other words, she's deceptive. She goes along with the pretence that this will be a "serious" long-term monogamous relationship when she knows damn well that it will not be.

Telling them that she knows she's going to dump their unsuspecting asses is "cruel," so for some reason, being deceptive and then dumping them isn't "cruel" either.

If they're an Alpha, then yes I will tell them, but it doesn't matter because they won't believe it. I have straight-out told guys before, in the beginning, "I am a destroyer of men" and they just think it's cute or funny or a challenge (until it happens to them).

I actually believe this. Alphas (of both types) have a tendency to think they're Superman. (My arguments with pro-monogamy Alpha 1.0s over the years clearly demonstrate this.)

But at least in these instances, she's being clear about her future intentions. If a woman is clear, and the guy is stupid or delusional, I blame the guy, not the woman. But if the woman isn't clear, my blame rests with her.

If they're a needy alpha, then no I would never tell them this because it would get a hostile, angry, and possibly violent or retaliatory reaction.

So again, she's willfully deceptive with every guy except the teeny tiny percentage she thinks are non-needy Alphas (2.0s).

Just to head off an objection that I can hear coming: It's true that when I get into a new FB or MLTR relationship with a woman, I don't tell them everything I'm going to be doing with them on the very first date. But I do not lead them on by making them think we're going to be A) monogamous, B) serious, or C) long-term partners.

That's the problem I have with serial monogamy and monogamy in general. As I've said in my podcasts, the entire foundation of the relationship is based on deception.

But just to be clear, the same result with happen with any guy…it's not just betas who will eventually be dumped.

Correct. She dumps them all. Nice.

2. When these men talk about getting married and having kids and stuff (and they usually do, because we're talking about betas here), do you correct these men, telling them that this is never going to happen? Or do you go along with the Big Lie, and give them an "Oh yeah, it will be great!"?

I just stay totally non-committal and don't respond one way or the other when they talk about marriage. I don't encourage it or engage in it but I also don't say "that will never happen."

It will never happen, but she doesn't tell them this. She's being deceptive.

I might tell them I don't want kids if I think they won't get upset or hostile. As time goes on and they begin to press on the commitment/marriage issue, I will begin to reveal my cards and that's when they will either go along with what I want (if they're betas) or we will start having explosive arguments and breaking up (if they're needy alphas).

I leave that one without comment.

3. Do you continue to have sex with your old boyfriend after getting a new boyfriend? (I already know the answer to this, which is usually "no", but I still want to see how a serial monogamist woman answers this question.)

No of course not. This question doesn't even make sense. Why would I continue having sex with my old boyfriend when the whole reason I leave him is because eventually I find it gross to have sex with him?

So when you get into a new relationship with a serial monogamist woman, at some point down the road she's going to think that it's "gross" to have sex with you.

By the way, married monogamous husbands know all about that one.

Isn't monogamy nice?

4. Do you feel at all bad when you dump all these men? Most of whom not only loved you (or at least had strong oneitis for you) but also wanted a long future with you with marriage and kids and stuff?

Betas = yes I feel horrible. Literally lifelong horrifying levels of guilt that I will never truly get over. I have actually visited therapists and hypnotists to try to get rid of the guilt.

Again, doesn't that sound nice? Serial monogamy is so much fun for everyone!

Generally it takes me months after I *want* to break up to build up the courage and harden my heart enough to actually do it. I care about them and it kills me to do it but what choice is there?

Oh, I don't know, maybe not get monogamous and follow one of the other systems I recommend?

It eventually becomes too nauseating to continue having sex and pretending not to be disgusted.

I hope you guys with monogamous girlfriends are paying close attention. That's gonna be you shortly.

5. Does it strike you as just a little odd when you're introducing these men as your boyfriend to your parents and closest friends within the first six months knowing them that in another few months you'll be doing the exact same thing with a new and completely different boyfriend? Do you ever have the thought, "I'd better hold off on introducing this guy to everyone in my life until he survives at least a year with me, that way I won't look stupid to everyone when I dump the guy and then bring a new boyfriend over to the house."?

Yes of course, it's embarrassing and after enough time a woman like me just gets a reputation as being a man-eater who goes through men and your friends and family stop taking it seriously – they will make jokes about it or roll their eyes or whatever. They will probably feel sorry for the men, my parents actively pity any guy I date.

Sounds wonderful. For both of you.

Again, however, what exactly is the alternative here?

I think I already answered that question. This entire blog and all of my books are the alternatives.

I stopped bringing boyfriends to my annual work retreat years ago for precisely this reason, nor do I post any pics or evidence about new boyfriends on FB. But am I supposed to hide them from everyone in my life?

If I had your lifestyle? Yes.

But I wouldn't have your lifestyle because I don't do monogamy. Because, you know, I like to be happy. But clearly I'm insane.

That's not practical and the guy will demand to be introduced to family/friends or get offended.

Yes. Better to continue the deception and fatten him up for the kill. Good point.

Another thing you're not considering is that if all of my male acquaintances/friends don't know I have a boyfriend, they will be actively trying to fuck me and that's annoying. You're forgetting that telecasting that you have a boyfriend is the best possible way to signal to other men that they shouldn't hit on you.

Ha! As if your male friends suddenly stop trying to fuck you as soon as you get a boyfriend!

And I've already talked about how abusive friend zone is. So you're a serial monogamous AND a friend-zoner. Great.

6. What about just dating for six months? Or a year? No boyfriend. Just dating around, hanging out with and/or fucking guys as you please. Not a lot of guys, just more than one. You know, enjoying life and putting in some numbers instead of being locked-down to just one needy guy. No drama, no rules, no big breakups, no hurt feelings, just sex, fun, 100% honesty with everyone, and enjoying yourself. And maybe, after playing around with a bunch of guys, you might even find one who will make a quality boyfriend you'll actually want to stay with for longer than a year or two. Does doing this have any appeal to you at all? If not, why not?

This question shows where you're confused. I would *love* to just date for six months or a year. But what you're forgetting is that MEN WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS. I have never, in my life, met a single guy who I can have sex with who will not insist on monogamy and locking me down.

I understand. This is a real problem and I'm doing my best to educate these betas and Alpha Male 1.0s on how they can be with a woman in a setting which is conducive to happiness and freedom rather than into something that promotes drama and control, and sets a pain time-bomb that will go off sometime in your future.

I have literally gone out of my way to seek out scumbags and it still doesn't matter. It's in their nature to try to lock down women and if they sense that you're less interested in monogamy than they are they will become obsessed with trying to block other men from your vagina. Therefore, this idea of just dating/fucking is a fantasy.

No it's not. Plenty of women "date" and play the field. Plenty of women are polyamorous or are in open relationships. Plenty of other women don't date men at all (though I don't think that's healthy).

You are correct regarding the problem but your answer to the problem is a cop-out and a lazy "solution." As I've already said, you as a woman have many other options beyond serial monogamy. This is demonstrably true.

7. I know that because you're a woman you automatically want to get monogamously married someday (even though it makes zero sense for you to do so, since you'll hate it). So I'm not even going to argue with you on that. But when you want to settle down and have kids, do you seriously think you're never going to get bored with him for the next 45 years straight? Even though you have a very steady and reliable pattern getting bored with men quickly? Or do you just plan on getting divorced a lot? What exactly is your long-term game plan and how do you plan on executing it with high odds of success? (Humorously, I could pose this exact same question to the typical player/PUA/manosphere guy too. But that's another topic.)

I've already been married

Big shock. Seriously, I had a feeling that you already had done the serial monogamy marriage thing: getting married when you know it won't work out but doing it anyway, then getting a divorce.

and yes I let my ex-husband convince me (during the NRE stage) that I could actually be long-term monogamous by pure force of will. By the time we were actually saying "I do" I was only half-way convinced.

Annnnddd bingo. I was right.

I've already demonstrated how modern day women know on their wedding day that the marriage won't be forever and a divorce will be forthcoming.

It's a shame so many men fall for this ruse.

At this point, I do NOT want to be married ever again. My "plan," if I had my way, would be to live for the rest of my life with my platonic best friends (either male or female) and have them be my source of companionship and family, while fucking new guys every few months. Basically the Golden Girls model would be the ultimate old-lady life for me and seems way more fun than living with some old guy you can't stand and have to listen to fart in bed every morning.

Sounds fine to me. Now if you could only do that without getting deceptive with men all the time…

However, society won't let me do this (though I think in the future it will be the preferred way of living). Right now, almost everyone is universally horrified when I tell them that that is my preferred way of living *with the exception of smart women* who always understand why it would be a desirable arrangement. They are the ONLY people who don't meet the idea with defensiveness, anxiety, or anger.

I know. It's called Societal Programming.

But again, you say society "won't let you do this." You can do whatever the fuck you want. That's the core concept you're missing in all of your statements.

You don't have to conform. As a matter of fact, conforming to Societal Programming eliminates the possibility for long-term, consistent happiness.

8. Do you have the same memorized speech you give these guys when you dump them? You've done it so many times I would assume it's gotten pretty routine by now.

No of course not. I make up a different viable and personalized excuse for each guy which is custom-tailored to preserve his ego and dignity and emotions to the maximum extent possible.

Gentlemen? Paying attention?

9. How regimented are you about this? Do you actually have a serial monogamy "system" you could show other women the same way I have a system for nonmonogamy that I show men? Or are you just always flying by the seat of your pants, blowing in whatever direction your biology pushes you?

There is zero regimentation and the idea that a *system* is necessary is silly. Let me explain it because it is very, very simple: when you meet a new guy you're attracted to, you get wet just thinking about him. After a while it takes making out to get you wet. A little while longer and *nothing* will get you wet except for direct stimulation of your vagina while you think about something else that turns you on. And then a little while after that and you will start to feel actively repulsed when he touches you or tries to kiss you and it will take a very strong force of will to not slap his hands away or snap at him out of visceral revulsion.

This above paragraph is the most accurate, well-written description of what monogamy is for a woman. It's why the real divorce rate is over 64%, why 82% of divorces are initiated by women, and why 75% of boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are terminated by the woman. It's why we live in a society of fatherless children, alimony, child support, and relationship drama.

It really is a fantastic summation. I should engrave that paragraph on gold plaques and sell them to men as a constant reminder of how damn stupid it is to get into any monogamous relationship with a woman (unless that man likes drama, and I know some do).

You can rest assured that I'm going to be quoting that paragraph often in the future. Good stuff.

This will happen even though you think he is the most wonderful person you know and your best friend and you care about him more than anything. And you would do anything to jumpstart your vagina or be attracted like you used to. But it is a completely biological process and works on its own and has nothing to do with your thoughts or opinions or conscious desires. At the beginning of your relationship you will be dripping for him and aroused. Later it will take work to get you there. And still later, nothing in the world will get you there and that's why there are a billion brands of lube sold (no one needs that in the beginning of a relationship).

Gentlemen? Still paying close attention to what she's saying?

10. Why do you think you get bored with men so reliably and regularly? Any theories on why you're like this? (I already know the answer to this question, because sexual boredom is a biological trait built into women . But again, I would love to hear her answer anyway.)

See above. It is purely biological. Also, after you have been with the same guy for a while and a new guy touches you, your physical reaction will be so volcanic that there is literally nothing to stop it. The longer you've been monogamous, the more extreme your reaction to a new man will be. After I was married for 5 years (far and away the longest period of monogamy in my life), the first time I hooked up with a new guy I was literally almost unconscious with arousal and desire. Wild horses will not stop your arousal once it is triggered by a new guy in this manner. Seriously. That is why women will blow up and burn down their entire life and it will just be because their vagina is on fire for a new guy and there is nothing they can do to stop it. See the scene in the movie Unfaithful where Diane Lane's character is literally convulsing with desire for a dead-on portrayal of what it is like. For guys, I would suggest that the most intense and reactive sex they'll ever have is with a married woman.

You're getting gold here, Gentlemen. I don't even need to comment.

11. Have you actually been in love with any of these guys? If the answer is yes, why did you still dump him so fast like all the other dudes? If the answer is no, why do you keep getting into serious relationships with men you don't love?

I was in love with a few of them. Being actually "in love" makes zero difference as far as the biological mechanism that I described above. In fact I would say it makes for an even starker and more disturbing distinction when your attraction dies, which it will, and not even on a slower track.

Remember that the next time a woman tells you she loves you.

Also, I just want to say that the only reason that all women don't do the above is that most aren't attractive or smart enough to be able to.

Correct. I have said before that long-term monogamy has even lower odds of working if the woman is hot.

But that's the only reason. But in the same way that a harem/polygamy is the ultimate expression of man's unrestrained sexuality, serial monogamy that doesn't last longer than a few months (maybe a couple years if they have a baby but that is it TOPS) is what all women would do if they were unrestrained.

Correct again. As I've been saying in the glossary for years, serial monogamy is women's biological, preferred method of pair bonding. Love you and just you, then get bored with you, dump you, find a new man, and start all over again.

The only time a woman doesn't do this is if she lives in a culture where this is not allowed, or if she is financially "stuck" with the guy (because of small children, lack of a job, etc).

Lots of women are so unattractive that they can't be sure of getting a new guy so they will stick with their guy purely out of fear and no options. And lots of hot women are so dumb that they allow themselves to be fooled by religious/social conditioning so that even while they naturally enact what I've described above, they will never actually be AWARE of it, and they'll make up all kinds of rationalizations. The tiny handful of very smart and also hot women I've known are gigantic man eaters and are absolutely aware of all of this though they will hide it from almost everyone. But you have to be hot enough to have lots of options and smart enough to figure out how to do what you want without inciting the wrath of men and society in order to actually pull it off. All women would if they could, usually only sexy/smart women will.

And sorry for any of you guys looking for some hope, but the hotter your girlfriend is, the more I can give you a 100% guarantee of her cheating on you. The only way to not be cheated on is to have a woman so ugly no one wants her, so dumb she will listen to you for a while (but she will also listen to another guy eventually so this is only a delaying tactic, not a solution), or to physically restrain/threaten her. Other methods work sometimes, such as fear of eternal damnation or social ostracism, but they're not foolproof.

And that's it folks. As I've often said, I don't even need to make anti-monogamy arguments when those who are pro-monogamy, or at least reluctantly practice monogamy, honestly explain how it works in the real world.

If the system that Kryptokate is describing sounds good to you, then go for it. I'll see you in about a year when you make a whiny post over here about how pissed off, needy, or depressed you are.

If the system she describes sounds shitty, then you might want to utilize the alternatives I described to her and in my books.

As always, the choice is yours. Choose wisely.

The post Confessions of a Serial Monogamist appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

---

Aging is Inevitable, Fat is a Choice

May 28, 2015, 5:00 am

I am overweight.

This is 100% my fault.

It's not my parents' fault, my genetics' fault, McDonald's fault, or Monsanto's fault. It's also not because I'm over 40.

It's because I occasionally choose to eat more calories than I burn. That's why. It's my fault. Everything in my life is my fault.

Most American women gain weight over time. It's just what American women do. Not all of them, but most of them.

While I don't believe it objectively, I follow a concept called Natural Law. This means, among other things, you own your own body 100%. That means if you choose to get fat, that's fine. That's your choice. It's your body, not mine, not society's, and not the government's. If you want to eat noodles and burritos and ice-cream and gain 40 pounds, that's completely your choice and I support your right to do it. It's your body. Cool with me.

(And before you say it, no,  I'm not going to get into the public healthcare debate today. "I have to control what you eat and care about your weight because I might have to pay for your healthcare!!!" Well, you shouldn't have to pay for people's healthcare. Under that system, healthcare becomes more expensive for no reason. But as I said, that's a debate for another time, so please to don't make any comments about the politics of this. That's what my other blog is for.)

Here's something else. Despite what I've said about women over 33 making men wait too long for sex in a dating environment (which is empirically correct by the way), I love women over 30 and over 40. Some of these women aren't super skinny. Perfectly fine with me. I think older women can be, and often are, very beautiful and sexually attractive. I am not one of those manosphere guys who say as soon as a woman turns 30 she's suddenly gross and no one wants her. I don't agree with that at all, and never have.

However Darling, you need to be honest about WHY you're getting fatter.

Whenever men correctly complain that American women are getting too fat, women get very upset, and respond with comments like these:

"Fuck you! I've had two children! Some of that weight doesn't come off once you have babies! I'd like to see YOU have a bunch of babies come out of YOUR body and then stay skinny!!!"

"Excuse me Mr. Asshole, but hello, people gain weight as they get older. You can't expect women to stay skinny in their late 40s and 50s!"

Let's examine these two irrational, almost psychotic attempts made by women avoiding self-responsibility.

Babies Fault?

Just because you have a few babies does not mean you are forever forced to be overweight the rest of your life. I grant you that it does sometimes mean that you may have a little more flab on your lower stomach. It does sometimes mean that you have some stretch marks there too.

But it does not mean that now you're suddenly 30 pounds heavier and are stuck with that extra 30 pounds forever just because you had a few babies.

If you are indeed 30 pounds heavier since you've had some babies, and are using that to explain your weight gain, then I'm sorry Darling, but you're full of shit. You're 30 pounds heavier because you're eating more and exercising less. Blame your pregnancies all you want, but we all know you're lying.

I'll say it again just to be really clear: If you blame your stretch marks or slight increase in flab on your lower stomach from your pregnancies, then I agree with you and I'm not going to hold that against you. I can't speak for other men, but I have never rejected a woman who was hot and trim because she had a little extra flab or stretch marks on her lower stomach. As long as she's hot, and she's more or less as skinny as she was before the babies, I'm very accepting of a few flaws.

I don't expect women to be perfect. Plus, I never get monogamous, so even if you become my girlfriend (an OLTR) I'll still be able to get some perfect-bodied women on the side when I need to. So unlike those men seeking monogamy, I don't require you to be perfect. Isn't that nice? (And yes Darling, you can get some perfect-bodied men on the side if you need to also; I'm not threatened by other men and fair is fair.)

But if you have a baby or two and gain 20, 30 pounds or more, and don't lose it, then I'm sorry, but you've CHOSEN to do this. You're just stuffing your face with more food, and using your pregnancies as a convenient scapegoat. And we all know you're doing this. You're not fooling anyone.

So any time you hear a woman blaming her noticeable weight gain on the fact she had babies a few years ago, remind her that she's lying. Because she is.

Aging's Fault?

Now let's deal with the getting older thing. Women will often scream that you can't blame them for getting fatter as they get older. "Everyone" gets fatter as they get older, these women say (or imply).

Many other women will imply that by complaining women get fatter, you are blaming "older women" in general. They will imply or say that you "hate" older women. Because again, to these women, old = fat.

This goes to the statement I've said many times:

Aging is inevitable, but fat is a choice.

I have had sex with women over 40 and even over 50(!). These women were pretty, but had plenty of signs of age, like a few wrinkles and whatnot. I have never, ever, turned down a woman because she had some signs of age…as long as she was still decently pretty and wasn't fat.

Aging is one of those few things in life which is out of your direct control. Sure, you can age well or age badly, and that's up to you, but your numerical age isn't something you can control, and as you age you will have some signs of aging no matter how well you do. As a 43 year-old man, I relate to this personally.

So I will never blame a non-fat "older" woman for being older. That's perfectly fine.

But if she's older and clearly overweight? Well, that's a different story. Aging is outside of her control, but her weight is directly within her control. If she's fat, that's her choice. And I can choose to avoid having sex with her for that reason. (Not her age!)

If you're a woman who was skinny in her 20s and is now overweight in your 30s or 40s, you made that choice. You choose to gain that weight and not lose it. If you wanted to lose it, you could, just like this woman here.

I know TONS of American women who were skinny when they were 20, but turned fat by the time they were 26, with no kids. Can a 26-year-old woman be categorized as an "older woman?" Really? Or did these women simply make a choice?

I know TONS of women, not just one or two, but TONS, who are well over 30 and over 40, who've had kids, and who are still skinny. How do you explain this if babies = fat and older = fat?

If you fly to certain countries in South America, you will notice that most of the over-30 and over-40 women are still skinny. This is even accounting for the fact that Hispanic women have more body fat than white women (!). How do you explain this if older = fat?

Yet I know TONS of American women who were skinny when they were in their 20s, and are now over 30 or over 40 and are clearly overweight. Because they're choosing to eat more crap.

And again, that's fine. It's your body. Eat that pizza and get as fat as you like. But don't lie to me about how it's because "you've had kids" or because "you're older." Those aren't the reasons, Darling. And you know it.

Aging is inevitable, but fat is a choice.

The post Aging is Inevitable, Fat is a Choice appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Slut Shaming Revisited

June 8, 2015, 5:00 am

I have discussed the topic of slut shaming on this blog before, and I also analyzed it in the Alpha Male 2.0 book. Today, I'm going to respond to two specific points that slut shamers often make which I have not delved into before.

I'll state my bias right up front. I think that women who have lots of sex, or have sex with multiple men, are not bad. On the contrary, I think they're quite wonderful, and bring happiness to many men, as well as themselves. Of course there are caveats to this, as I've discussed before in the links above. These women need to be using condoms and need to be taking care of their personal safely and sexual health. They also should not be getting pregnant so that I'm forced at gunpoint to pay for their accidental spawn via my tax dollars.

So as long as they behave like responsible adults, women who have a lot of sex with dudes are awesome in my book. I wish there were more of them, particularly those women over age 33.

Now let's tackle some slut shaming arguments.

The Egg vs Sperm Argument

Slut shamers will say that it's perfectly fine for men to have sex with a lot of women, but it's bad for women to have sex with a lot of men. Why? Because women only drop one egg per month and have a very limited supply, while men make millions of sperm a day and have an unlimited supply. Therefore, it is somehow natural for men to have many sexual partners and unnatural for women to have many partners.

Here's the problem: What the fuck does that have to do with anything in the 21st century?

If this was the middle ages, and there was no birth control, no STD protection, no abortion, no adoption systems, no vasectomies, and no non-married child support culture or structure, then yes. It would be very dangerous for a woman to go around sleeping with a bunch of men. She might get pregnant and it would be a major source of problems for her, possibly even leading to her own death. It would also be perfectly fine for a man to go around impregnating women, since even if he impregnated a bunch, and he probably would, there would be no repercussions for him.

Just one problem. This isn't the middle ages.

What in the world do sperm and eggs have to do with anything in a world of condoms, IUDs, blood tests, vasectomies, and abortion? NOTHING. It's completely and utterly irrelevant in the modern age. The fact that I make millions of sperm and my cute FB can only drop one egg a month has nothing to do with whether or not she's a "slut." This is because I wear a condom, get STD tests done frequently, and my FB has a Mirena IUD implanted in her. She can't get pregnant and we're both very unlikely to get an STD from each other.

Under that scenario, which is the typical scenario for today's non-married people, what does sperm and eggs have to do with whether or not she's a slut?

Again, NOTHING.

Moreover, I have noticed that more women are on more valid forms of birth control now than back in 2007 when I first entered the Alpha Male lifestyle. Noticeably, more women I meet use birth-control mechanisms like IUDs or Nexplanon compared to those who I met seven or eight years ago. This is a fantastically good trend for us Alphas, and should be further encouraged.

I know we could have a debate about whether or not birth control is healthy for women, but that's a discussion for other time. The point here is that if she can't get pregnant, and both our odds of getting an STD from each other are very low, then this whole slut sperm/egg argument is completely irrelevant.

Men who say that "women who fuck lots of guys are sluts because they have a limited amount of eggs" are still living in the 16th century. I'm sorry, but we don't live in those days any more. If you want to present a point, you need to update your argument to something that makes sense within 21st century sexual realities.

The 100-Partner Argument

The next slut shamer argument states that if a man has sex with 100 women, it will not (seriously) negatively affect his life or psyche, but if a woman has sex with 100 men, it will damage her as a woman. She will suffer harmful physical and psychological effects, while a man who has similar experiences will probably be fine.

On its face, I generally agree with this, but it's more complicated than it sounds. There are two aspects of this which render this argument either false or immaterial. I'll describe the smaller one first.

As a man, having sex with 100 women won't affect you adversely as long as monogamy is not your eventual goal. As I've demonstrated before, approximately three-fourths of the Alphas in the manosphere and PUA world hold long-term monogamy as an eventual goal to be fulfilled "someday." Remember this, because it's very important. Alpha Males and players don't want to be players for their entire lives. The majority of these men want to settle down and get monogamous eventually.

If you NEVER want to get 100% monogamous, EVER, then having sex with 100 women is just fine. Go for it and have fun. However, as I explained in item number 14 here, if you have a goal of long-term monogamy "someday," you actually destroy your chances of that ever working if you become a successful player and have sex with piles of women.

This is why dorky, sexually inexperienced beta males actually have better odds (or more accurately, less bad odds) of making long-term monogamy work than you do if you're an Alpha who's slept with a lot of women. You've established a precedent, desire, and pattern of behavior for sexual variety. When you're finally dumb enough to get married and monogamous with no prenup, after your NRE honeymoon period is over, you're going to cheat. Then you're going to get caught. Then you're going to get massive drama at best, a divorce and custody battle at worst.

So the claim that having sex with 100 women doesn't harm a man is largely false. Most men, even Alphas/players, want to get monogamous someday, and your ability to be life-long monogamous (without cheating!) is virtually destroyed if you have sex with that many women.

Happily, the Alpha Male 2.0 is exempted from this limitation. He'll never get monogamous. Even if he settles down into an OLTR or OLTR Marriage, he's still allowed to get some on the side. So he can sleep with 100, 200, or 1000 women, and still be just fine. It's only you guys who want long-term monogamy someday who are damaging yourselves by sexing all these women.

Alright, here's the second and larger point on this 100-partner argument. Who ever said you should go out and marry a woman who's had sex with 100 guys? How many women do you know who's had sex with 100 guys? Are there really that many? Are you going to get serious with a woman like this? Really?

Some more questions. What's wrong with having a fuck buddy or MLTR who's had sex with 100 men? Is there anything wrong with this?

A problem only arises if you get super serious with a woman like this. I agree with you that marrying a woman in a 100% monogamous marriage who's had sex with 100+ men probably isn't a great idea. So fine, don't marry a woman like that. How hard is it to follow that advice? Are there really hordes of 100+ partner women roaming around the streets? Are they really that hard to avoid? No.

That being said, DO have sex with them! Date them! Spend time with them! Enjoy them! Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't get oneitis or serious.

Again, be realistic. How many women, who've had sex with over 100 men, are you going to meet or date in your life? Seriously, this number is going to be very small. The vast majority of the women you're going to be in relationships with over the course of your life will have had somewhere between 5-30 partners. Very few will be anywhere near 100, much less over 100.

Therefore, all this hand-wringing about these women who've fucked 100 men doesn't make any sense. Statistically, there are very few women rocking these kinds of numbers. Are they really a problem? Is it really worth freaking out about?

Well, okay, fine Blackdragon. But I still wouldn't get serious with a woman who's been with more than three or four guys!!!

If you want to say that you shouldn't get serious with a woman who's slept with 100 dudes, then I think you have slightly the wrong attitude, but I certainly won't argue with you. However, if you then say you shouldn't get serious with someone who's been with 15 partners, then that's just silly. Who cares if she's been with 15 other dudes before you? Is she now damaged goods? If you dated two women, one who had been with three men and another who had been with 15, you would not be able to tell the difference.

Granted, if you then bring a third woman who had been with 150 men, then yes, you probably could spot the difference with her.

See what I'm saying? Putting the 15-partner women in the same category as the 100-partner women is not only inaccurate, it's dumb.

The 100-partner argument relies on focusing on a very tiny percentage of women who have been with a staggering amount of sexual partners. If you simply keep the women you get serious with at non-insane partner counts, which I think most men will do anyway, then the argument is completely invalid. Moreover, women who have been with a lot of sexual partners serve a very important and necessary function in the life of an Alpha Male and should not be disparaged.

I'll end with my final summation on slut shaming. The more you slut shame, the harder you make it for me and every other man to get laid. Dude, getting to sex is hard enough for most men. Why are you making it harder for us?

The post Slut Shaming Revisited appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Women's Greatest Problem: The Myth of the Submissive Alpha Male

June 25, 2015, 5:00 am

Today I will describe the number one problem for Western women in the modern era. It's something I've alluded to before but never described in detail.

When looking to get a long-term boyfriend or husband, modern day women have only two options:

1. Get a beta male who will obey her and conform to her Disney image of dating and marriage, but who will also eventually bore the shit out of her.

2. Get an Alpha Male who will never bore her and always keep her attracted, but who will eventually infuriate her by not following orders and/or not conforming to her feminine, Societal Programming-based Disney desires.

If she doesn't like either of those two options, she can always choose a third one:

3. Stay single and alone for the rest of her life, occasionally getting short-term sex and companionship when needed, but never actually pair-bond with one long-term guy.

Those are her only three options, at least in terms of getting into a long-term (3+ years) relationship or marriage with a man. There is no other option beyond those three. Those three are all she gets. She must pick one.

Her problem? She hates all three of those options. She doesn't want any of them.

Be a with a man who bores her? Unacceptable. Women hate being bored, and have a much lower boredom tolerance than men. Women would rather be unhappy, alone, or in a bad relationship than be bored.

Be with man who refuses to take her out on fancy dinner dates, or doesn't take out the trash when he's ordered, or who demands a prenup, or who has sex with other women on the side? Aw, hell no! She's a Strong Independent Woman™, dammit! No man is going to treat her with disrespect! Her husband must be a Gentleman™ who Treats Her Like A Lady™.

Stay single for the rest of her life? Screw that! That directly opposes damn near all of her Societal Programming and Obsolete Biological Wiring. She doesn't want to be the crazy cat lady down the street she used to make fun of when she was young and pretty in her early 20s.

All three of the only options available to the modern day woman, she hates.

So what does she do?

Well, she's a woman. This means:

A) She wants everything even if it's impossible, and

B) She was raised to use woman logic to make most of her major life decisions.

Therefore, she simply invents a new fourth fantasy option out of thin air. This fourth option does not exist in real life. It's pure fiction, but she doesn't care. She vigorously pursues it anyway.

This fourth fantasy option is to go out and find a type of man that doesn't exist in the real world. This unicorn is called the Submissive Alpha Male. The fourth option looks something like this:

I want a man who is strong, confident, badass, successful, take-charge, and masculine. He needs to be a guy who kicks ass and turns me on. BUT! He also needs to treat me like a lady, do what he's told, take out the trash, always be faithful, treat me with respect, and kiss my ass.

That's what today's woman wants. However, little does she realize she's just described a man who does not exist.

As I have discussed in detail in my books and blogs, men are Alphas or betas. One or the other. They cannot be both. It's impossible. Granted, there are "nicer" Alphas, but they're still Alphas. There are slightly more confident betas, but they're still betas. A man is still Alpha or beta, with all the pros and cons those two categories entail.

A man who is strong, confident, badass, successful, and masculine is an Alpha Male. This man is not going to follow a woman's orders, at least not for the long term. This man is going to eventually cheat on her, even if he promises not to. This man is not going to (long term) conform to her perfect Cinderella marriage/relationship fantasies, again, even if he initially promises he will. Yes, he may initially (and reluctantly) go along with things like paying for fancy dates, marriage, and/or sexual monogamy in the short therm. Yet later he'll refuse to obey orders, or cheat on her, or treat her like shit, or whatever.

On the other side of the coin, a man who treats a woman "like a lady," does whatever a woman wants, showers her with money, cheerfully agrees to whatever relationship aspects or parameters she demands, does what he's told whenever ordered, and constantly kisses her ass is, a beta male. This man is not going to be a strong, tough, take-charge, badass, masculine dude. This guy is not going to be dominant during sex. He's going to be a nice guy, not a badass. Unlike the Alpha, he will indeed conform to all of her relationship/marriage fantasies and largely stick with them, but he's not going to be exciting or maintain a strongly attractive, masculine personality.

It's Alpha or beta, Sweetie. One or the other. You can't have both inside the same man. Fantasize all you want, you will never, ever, EVER find a man who is both of those things. You going to have to either pick one of those two and put up with the downsides of each, or stay single for the rest of your life.

Do women acknowledge this? No. Instead, they go on first date, after first date, after first date, looking for Mr. Unicorn Man. They have relationship, after relationship, after relationship, looking for Mr. Submissive Alpha Male.

Women spend DECADES of their lives doing this. I've seen them do it. I'm sure you have too. And for some bizarre reason, they never find this guy.

I wonder why?

Because he doesn't exist, Darling.

If you try to explain to a woman that the Submissive Alpha Male doesn't exist, women huff and puff and tell you that you don't know what you're talking about, and if they just go on enough first dates and have enough boyfriends, eventually they'll find him. He's Out There Somewhere™, waiting for me. You'll see, you'll see!

Yes, I do see. I see millions of women wasting their 20s, 30s, and often much of their 40s looking for Mr. Unicorn Man only to finally and angrily surrender for a beta or Alpha in their late 40s or early 50s. By then, many of them finally understand that they wasted their lives looking for something that wasn't real.

Regardless, even these women don't tell any of the younger women this. Instead, they perpetuate the Submissive Alpha Male fantasy. Just keep looking, they tell younger women, he's out there somewhere, don't worry, you're a good person, so someday you'll find him. Mr. Unicorn Man, The Tough Masculine Badass Who Follows Your Orders and Never Cheats On You™.

And so the cycle of pain and suffering continues.

One Alternate, Realistic Option

There is one alternate and realistic option where a woman can have both the Disney and obedience of the beta male along with the excitement and passion of the Alpha Male. Have an OLTR Marriage with a beta male and then have sex with Alphas on the side. Many women do this in normal "monogamous" marriage anyway, marrying a pussy beta and then cheating on him with Alphas.

Cheating is messy though, so a much better option is to go the OLTR route. A woman of even moderate physical appearance can quite easily find a beta male who will kiss her ass and pay her bills, and then she can tell him she's going to discreetly get a little Alpha cock on the side. Betas, being men, won't like that of course, but they will agree to it. Betas will agree to anything to keep their girl. That's part of what makes them betas (and why more picky or dominant women like them so much).

I've suggested this option to many women I know in my social and work life. As you might imagine, they cringe when I suggest it. It conflicts with too much feminine Societal Programming. Someday women will see the light on this, since this really is a viable option, but I guess today is not that day. The good news is that I have seen a noticeable upswing in the amount of women who are cool with long-term open relationships over the last 10 years or so. The trend is encouraging.

(You may be wondering why I'm not suggesting a woman marry (or cohabit with) an Alpha Male and go have sex with betas on the side. That's because it's not the same thing. The benefits a woman receives from a beta male are all non-sexual, so having a beta male or two "on the side" doesn't make a lot of sense. Though I'm sure one could configure any type of relationship where something like this might work, such as being with an Alpha but getting sex from really good-looking betas on the side.)

Forward this post to any woman you know who is still trying to pursue Mr. Unicorn Man. Maybe you can help save a few women from a lifetime of wasted disappointment.

The post Women's Greatest Problem: The Myth of the Submissive Alpha Male appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Relationship Advice and Hypocrisy

June 30, 2015, 9:46 am

A few days ago, Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, and advocate/spokesperson for abstinence, teen pregnancy prevention, and sexual responsibility, announced that she was pregnant, yet again. Once again, it was out of wedlock, and this time with a different baby daddy than before.

She was bitchy about it at her blog, saying things like,

I'm announcing this news a lot sooner than I ever expected due to the constant trolls who have nothing better to talk about!!!

and

I do not want any lectures

Yes, you pampered, hypocritical bitch, I'm sure you don't. This is a woman who was paid as much as $30,000 per speech and $260,000 by one charity alone for preaching about sexual responsibility and pregnancy prevention.

Is she going to get an abortion? Of course not. She's a right-wing conservative. She's going to have the baby and all of her friends and everyone in her family will kiss her ass, just as most people do these days when young, unmarried women have babies by accident.

Of course she quickly backtracked and said the pregnancy was "planned." Yeah, right. If that's true, that makes all of this even worse.

I'm not going to spend the rest of this blog post bashing this doofus. That's too easy, and it's not even the real problem. She's wealthy, and I've said before that I don't mind if wealthy single women crank out babies. (Though the fact she's a raging hypocrite who ripped off thousands of dollars from charities doesn't do much for her.)

The real problem here is society's worship of hypocrites when it comes to relationship and sex advice. I'll give you several examples.

1. Barbara De Angelis. This woman was one of the foremost relationship experts of the 80s and 90s. For many years she was all over TV and hailed as a relationship expert. She sold products, put on seminars, had several New York Times bestsellers, and made millions of dollars teaching people, mostly women, how to have quality, lifelong relationships.

Just one problem. She's been divorced five times.

I don't mean she's been divorced five times by now. I mean back when she was popular, she had been divorced five times, all before 1995. One of the five husbands was none other than John Gray, the author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.

It gets worse. Back in the early 90s, I watched several long interviews with Barbara, and she's, well, a psycho. She would talk seriously about having past life experiences. She would have actual, hyperventilating panic attacks if her boyfriend didn't call her every day, especially while traveling, and update her on exactly what he was doing at all times.

None of this seemed to bother society, who pumped her up as some kind of qualified relationship expert and bought products from her to the tune of millions of dollars.

2. Tony Robbins. Look, I love Tony Robbins. Really, I do. I've seen him speak several times, have read his books, and his original Personal Power program definitely contributed to some of my successes in life back in the early 90s. His general success principles and NLP stuff is top-notch and I wholeheartedly recommend it to others.

The problem is that he made millions of dollars on seminars and products around the topic of how to have a marriage that "lasts a lifetime" and how to find the "perfect mate".

I have no problem with people making money giving advice. I do that myself. But you'd better be the example of the advice you're giving. I have no problem with Tony giving advice on how to turn your life around, or form new habits, or make a lot of money. He's done all that stuff. But having a quality marriage?

Tony married an older single mother with three kids, the oldest of which was just a few years younger than Tony at the time. While being married to this woman, he fathered a child with another woman. Then, as many of you know, Mr. Marriage That Lasts A Lifetime got divorced. Oops.

Worse, he married another woman the same year he got divorced. This new woman was married to another guy when she started dating Tony, and left the dude to marry Tony.

Does any of this sound like someone using good relationship strategies?

3. Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Dr. Laura was a hugely successful radio talk show host who gave advice on relationship issues, mostly marriage and relationships. Being a right-wing Christian, she regularly berated callers, quite angrily, about how they should not "shack up" (i.e. move in with someone) unless legally married, how people should be faithful in marriage, how people should pick quality partners, how people shouldn't get divorced, how women shouldn't have babies out of wedlock, how people should respect their family, etc.

She made millions upon millions of dollars with this advice, and was almost a household name.

Just one problem. She had blatantly and repeatedly violated all the advice she gave. She dated a married man. He actually moved in with her, while not being married to her, and stayed with her for nine years. After his divorce, they finally got married. Why? Because she got pregnant. Out of wedlock.

She didn't speak to her own sister or mother for 18 years. Her mom died alone in her apartment, and no one knew for two months until her dead body started to stink up the place. Dr. Laura had no idea, and apparently didn't even care.

4. PUA and the manosphere. Obviously this isn't mainstream, but this hypocrisy extends even to our little world. Just off the top of my head, I could name at least seven PUA/manosphere gurus right now, many of whom you'd know or have heard of, who have given advice on how to "find the perfect girlfriend" or "find the perfect wife" or give relationship advice in general. These guys went on to either get married or move in together in a monogamous relationship, brag about how happy they were (often adding that they "didn't need PUA any more") only to have it blow up in their faces a year or two later. Breakups, move-outs, divorces, drama.

(No, I'm not going to name names, so please don't ask. That would cause a flame war and I don't have the time in my schedule at the moment to deal with the fallout, even if it made me money. But many of you know who these guys are.)

This is why I A) never give advice regarding monogamous relationships and B) never give advice about how to have a relationship or marriage that lasts "the rest of your life." I have no successful experience with monogamy, nor is having a marriage that lasts "the rest of your life" possible for most people in the modern era, particularly Alpha Males.

Bottom Line

In society, people are (for the most part) smart enough to not take get-rich advice from people who are poor, or get-fit advice from people who are fat. But for some bizarre reason, people will happily suck up relationship and sex advice from hypocritical dumbasses like Bristol Palin who are doing the exact opposite of the crap that they're advising other people to do.

Even if some people point out the hypocrisy, these hypocrites are often vehemently defended. It's fascinating as it is sad.

One of my personal business standards is to not give advice in areas I have no experience in. Guys ask me all the time to give advice about things like monogamous relationships and fitness, and I always refuse. I have no expertise or real successes in these areas, so I refuse to give advice about it, and will continue to do so.

I'm not sure why this is difficult for other people to do. If you haven't done it, don't shoot your mouth off about it. If you've done it, but don't know for sure if it's really worked out yet, keep your mouth shut about it until it does. If you aren't practicing what you preach, stop preaching. (If you want to talk about what you would like to, or about something theoretically possible, or something you're attempting, that's all okay. I often do that myself, but I make it very clear that it's not something which I've personally accomplished yet, and thus not qualified to give advice about.)

The problem isn't Bristol Palin. The problem is a society so needy for relationship or sex advice that they'll listen to just about anyone who gives the said advice, regardless of whether that advice makes sense or if the advice-giver is actually doing (or has done) what they're advising.

Society created Bristol Palin. It's our fault. And society isn't done creating more of her.

The post Relationship Advice and Hypocrisy appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Women's Choice: 1950s or 1970s (Please Choose One)

August 27, 2015, 10:28 am

Today, women are more confused about their roles in relationships than ever before. Most of this is their fault, though men share some blame too. A lot of this is due to conflicting messages that society conveys to modern-day women. Still more of this is the conflict between what women really want at a core biological level (in order to be happy) and what they're supposed to want (in order to be a societally-approved Strong Independent Woman™).

There are many of these conflicts, but I'm going to give you the greatest. This is the conflict in a woman's mind between the 1950s woman and the 1970s woman.

I have often told the women in my social and work life that, in terms of dating and relationships, they need to choose between the 1950s or the 1970s, but they can't have both. They're going to want both, but having both at the same time doesn't work in the real world (at least in the long-term, as divorce rates clearly indicate). Let's look at both options.

The 1950s Woman

A woman in the 1950s (and prior) had her ass kissed during the dating/courting phase. Men would treat them like little queens, taking them out on the most expensive dates they could afford while dressing as nice as they were able. Men on these dates were ultra-polite, consummate gentlemen, pulling her chair out for her, laying their coats on puddles for her to walk on, and slathering her with compliments. 1950s women on dates received all kinds of gifts, including flowers, chocolates, jewelry, clothing, and often even more expensive items (again, as much as the guy could afford based on his socio-economic level).

Men on these dates never, ever tried to have sex with her. That just wasn't done. At best, these men got a kiss on cheek as they dropped her off, then quickly went home to masturbate.

In other words, during the dating phase, women were in the driver's seat, and men were the ass-kissing provider-submissive-hopefuls.

Why in the world did men do all this crap?

Very simple. If/when the woman actually married the man, the entire scenario flipped. He would take care of her financially for the rest of her life, but now he was in charge. The 1950s wives cleaned the entire house, made all the meals, and did at least 80% of the kid-raising work. She was expected to do all of this shit, forever, and usually did.

Moreover, the 1950s (and prior) wife was expected to put out sexually for "her man" and often did. If he wanted a blowjob, she obeyed and gave him one, regardless of whether she was in the mood, or if she had a bad day, or if she was on her period, etc. I know I'm generalizing here and this didn't always happen with every marriage, but this kind of sexual subservience was much more common in marriages back then than today. Go ask some really old guys in the retirement homes and they'll tell you all about it. The historical stats also clearly show that married people back then were having much more sex than they do today, and this is a big reason why. 1950s women, once married, did what they were ordered to do.

These women also virtually never got divorced, and put up with all kinds of crap from their husbands, up to and including things like physical abuse and cheating. It was considered a wife's duty do to this, so they did. I don't agree with physical abuse or cheating as I've stated many times before. I'm just reporting to you how things were back then.

In other words, in a weird sort of way, it made sense for men to kiss women's asses during the dating process, since once the woman was married to them, these men had a virtual slave literally for the rest of their lives. The upside for the woman was that she was financially taken care of for the rest of her life, even after her husband's death (since divorce rates were so low and pensions were solid back then).

That was the 1950s woman. Now let's look at her 1970s sister, a very different gal…

The 1970s Woman

During the 1970s, first-wave, sex-positive feminism was a growing rage among unmarried women. Not all single women back then subscribed to this kind of thinking, but a hell of a lot did, at least in the US. To be clear, this was not the feminism of today. The original feminism of the 1970s was a strong desire for equal rights and sexual freedom. Today's feminism is an angry, rage-filled lashing out about the shirts men wear or the specific wording men use on websites. Since first-wave feminism achieved its primary goals (women are now legally equal to men in every way and can have sex with whomever they like), today's feminism has nothing of core substance to complain about, so they instead waste their time screaming inaccurate slogans, like about how men make more money than women, which is demonstrably untrue, or about the dangers of "rape culture," which makes no sense since there's been an 85% DECREASE in rape since the late 1970s.

But I digress.

When a man went out on a date with that 1970s feminist, it was an utterly different scenario than with the 1950s girl. The 1970s girl lectured him about how they would both pick a place together. Then, when they went out, she would pay her half of the bill. She was an independent woman with her own income, so she didn't want a man to pay for her and thus have power over her like the 1950s girl, whom the 1970s girl viewed as a pathetic weakling.

If the guy tried to pay for the date, the 1970s girl actually got pissed off. "Excuse me?!? No, I'm going to pay for my own food. I don't need you! How dare you try to take that kind of power over me? Don't you think I can make my OWN money?!?"

I'm not kidding about this. These women back then would actually get mad if the guy tried to pay for a first date. I know that sounds alien to us today, but go ask Gloria Steinem and she'll tell you all about it.

If the two actually got into a relationship, she would poke a defiant finger in his chest and tell him that she was her own woman, that she didn't belong to him, and that she could do whatever the hell she wanted, including having sex with other men, which many of these women did. They were the original anti-monogamists (outside of historical polygamy). She would also boss the guy around, making him take out the trash and other beta tasks.

The good news for the man was that he was not expected to financially support her. He could keep his money, since she "didn't need a man's money" and could support herself (at least theoretically). Many of these women also avoided having children for similar reasons.

As you might expect, these 1970s women would often get into relationships with beta males on whom they'd cheerfully crack the whip. They'd also hook up a lot. This was before any big STD scare, so single people in the 70s seriously got laid. Ask Eric Bogosian and he'll tell you all about it.

The 1970s girl was essentially the opposite of the 1950s girl. The 1970s girl didn't get her ass kissed at all during the dating phase, but had massive freedom and control during the relationship. She didn't get the money, Disney, and gifts during the dating phase, but she was the boss, pretty much at all stages.

Today's Woman

What then is today's woman? It's very simple. Starting around the 1990s, women have conveniently taken the best parts of the 1950s woman and the best parts of the 1970s woman, and discarded all the rest. Today's woman, particularly those over age 33 (but women of all ages have this as their baseline), want the money, financial support, Disney, and ass-kissing like the 1950s girls AND the "Don't tell me what to do – I'm in charge here!" power of the 1970s women. They want both.

Being a slave like the 1950s women? Nope, today's women certainly don't want that.

Paying her own way on dates, and paying her own bills forever like the 1970s woman? Nope, today's women don't want that either.

They want the money and the power, now hand it all over you silly little man, thank you very much.

If that doesn't make any sense to you, or doesn't sound fair, they don't care. I have demonstrated repeatedly on this blog that even women who make good incomes, can support themselves, and brag that they're independent will still demand that you buy them multiple dinners and drinks before you have sex. These false-independent women will demand that even though they don't need a man, you still need to marry them, pay most of her bills, and not sign a prenup in case she wants more money from you post-divorce.

Doesn't make sense? Of course it doesn't. But like I said, they don't care.

This is why I've told women they really need to pick one, and stick with it. 1950s or 1970s. Hey, I'm a flexible guy.I'll go for either of those models. You want to be submissive to me and I take care of you financially? Okay, I'll do that. You want to do whatever you want, never have me tell you what to do, but don't want me to give you any money? Cool, I'm down for that too.

But you want me to give you a bunch of money (either in the form of dinners, paid bills, cash, or whatever) AND you want to be able to boss me around and tell me what to do? Yeah, um, no, sorry, not interested. Moreover, it's fucking insulting to even suggest such a thing to me. Don't you think YOU would be insulted if I suggested such a thing to you, Darling? "Give me a bunch of money and then follow all my rules." Would YOU like that deal, Sweetie?

I have a feeling you wouldn't.

Then why are you demanding I do it?

Food for thought, Darling.

Today's women have forgotten that the 1950s and the 1970s attitudes do not constitute a salad bar, from which they can pick and choose just the best parts and leave all the shitty parts for us guys. Instead, she needs to pick one or the other, and suck it up and take the negatives of whichever option she chooses. (Or stay single the rest of her life; that's always an option too.)

It would be wonderful if life was perfect. Such is not to be.

The final question is this: If this is such an unreasonable expectation for modern-day women to have of men, why has it become so common, so much so that it has now become the norm?

Answer: Beta males. Betas will agree to just about anything, and since around 70% of modern-day men are now betas, there you go. Thus, men are to blame for this problem too.

But that's another story…

The post Women's Choice: 1950s or 1970s (Please Choose One) appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Men's Great Flaw: Looking For The Unicorn Woman

August 31, 2015, 5:00 am

A few weeks ago I posted this article about how women waste their entire lives looking for a Unicorn Man who doesn't exist. This man is the "Submissive Alpha," a strong, tough, take-charge, masculine badass who also obeys all of her instructions, treats her like a lady at all times, and never cheats on her. In other words, a man who literally doesn't exist.

Women instead must choose between a beta male, who will follow her orders and treat her like a lady but eventually bore the shit out of her, or an Alpha Male, who will constantly keep her attracted and excited but who will at least semi-regularly be breaking her big relationship rules (such as cheating). There is no such thing as a "Beta-Alpha," yet women will happily waste decades of their lives, going through cheating, breakups, and divorces looking for this man, until finally figuring out there is no such thing by the time she's in her 50s.

Today we're going to talk about how many Alpha Males do the same damn thing; wasting their entire lives looking for a Unicorn Woman who doesn't exist. I've discussed this topic several times before but never examined it fully.

I observed this delusion so often with Alphas that many years ago I came up with a term to describe it: Guy-Disney. Per the glossary, here's the definition:

Guy-Disney – The incorrect thought men have that somewhere out there is a girl who will love you forever, never cheat on you, never get bored with you, and never break up with you.

And there you go. That's Ms. Unicorn Woman. Because of Guy-Disney, Alpha Males will have sex with scores, if not hundreds of women looking for this special person…and yet never find her.

Why? Because she doesn't exist.

Since men are not women, men exhibit this life-wasting fantasy very differently than females. In their pursuit for Unicorn Man, women simply go on date after date and have relationship after relationship until they're finally exhausted in their 50s and settle for whichever beta male happens to be left standing when the music stops. Men, being a little more methodical, go about this delusion in four phases.

Phase One

Men in phase one of this destructive process tend to be younger and not very experienced in long-term relationships yet. What little he knows regarding these things are what he reads on web sites and what he observes from older people in his family. The attitude is something like this:

Somewhere out there is the Girl For Me™. I just need to be very Alpha, fuck a lot of sluts, and be very good at screening. Once we're in a relationship, I need to not take any of her shit and take charge. Then we'll be together forever, and it will be great. Sure, it will be some work, but I'm up to the challenge. I know it can be done. My uncle did it.

Mr. Naive then proceeds to get good at game, have sex with a few women, then get oneitis for one, get monogamous, and then move in or get married to her. After a brief NRE phase lasting one to four years, all the problems begin, drama ensues, possibly some cheating, then he gets divorced or breaks up.

Still seeking the Unicorn Woman who doesn't exist, he is undaunted. He then enters phase two.

Phase Two

Phase two usually begins right after a man has had a bad breakup or divorce. He says something like this:

Wow, she was a bitch! Thank god I learned my lesson and won't be with a woman like THAT again! The NEXT girl won't be like that. She Won't Be Like The Rest™. My NEXT wife (or girlfriend) will be sweet, kind, sexual, and loyal. Not like THAT fuckin' bitch! Good thing I've upped my game and knowledge! That nightmare won't happen to me again!

I've been amazed, stunned really, at the number of otherwise intelligent men I see, Alphas included, who go though a terrible divorce only to get married again a few years later the exact same way: fully monogamous, no prenup, with full expectations that This Time It Will Work™.

So many men do a "Howard Stern" after a bad breakup or divorce, declaring loudly to the world that marriage sucks, that they'll never get married again, only to be married again just a few years later.

As I've discussed many times before, the divorce rates for second marriages are worse than first marriages, so invariably these men get divorced again (if they married) or go though a big dramatic breakup again (if they weren't married).

Since he's still on the mission of searching for Ms. Unicorn Woman, he keeps chugging along, only this time he often enters phase three. This is where things start getting complicated…

Phase Three

After having repeated problems with women because they aren't Unicorn Woman, an Alpha often enters phase three. If you've been reading the manosphere for a while, phase three is going to sound very familiar:

All the women in <My Country> are fat, slutty, skanky, angry, trashy, feminist, gold digging whores. Dammit! I can't marry any of these bitches! But in <New Country>, they're all beautiful, skinny, feminine, submissive, loyal angels, just like women used to be back in the 1950s when everything was perfect. I'm going to move to New Country, because that's where I'll find Unicorn Woman. She certainly doesn't live in My Country, because My Country sucks! Man, I can't wait to get to New Country so I can find her and be happy!

New Country is usually some country in Eastern Europe, though sometimes it's in Asia, and sometimes it's simply a different country in the Western world (the US included). Every Alpha in phase three of this delusion has a different New Country where he's excited to find Ms. Unicorn Woman. My Country can also vary widely, and it's endlessly humorous to read one Alpha bitching about his My Country while another Alpha can't wait to move there because it's his New Country. Hilarious!

Before I lay into this insanity, I want to make two things clear:

1. I have said repeatedly that if you're unhappy where you live, MOVE. Therefore, yes, if you hate the people in your country or city, you need to pack your shit and move. I congratulate men who have the balls to do this, since I see way too many men whine like babies about where they live, yet stay there with all the usual boo-hoo excuses about how they "can't move."

2. I completely agree that some cities are harder to get laid in than others. It's easier to get laid in Miami or Rio than it is to get laid in San Francisco or Toronto. There's no question about that. But I'm not talking about getting laid today. I'm talking about Guy-Disney, finding that Unicorn Woman who is Not Like The Rest™ and will Love You Forever™.

The problem is that Ms. Unicorn Woman doesn't exist in My Country or New Country. She doesn't exist at all. As I've been talking about forever, she's biologically hard-wired to get sexually bored with you after a few years of living with you in a monogamous state. This is how she's designed, and it doesn't matter if she was born in Chicago, Kiev, or Bangkok.

Moreover, unless she lives in the Muslim Middle East, she lives in a society where she's not only allowed to break up or divorce you whenever she wants, and for any reason she wants, but is actually pressured to do so from strong, modern-day Societal Programming regarding the Strong Independent Woman™.

Therefore, at some point, assuming the monogamous relationship lasts long enough, she's going to either A) get bored with you and start restricting sex, or B) leave you / divorce you, or C) leave you / divorce you when she catches you cheating on her (which we both know you eventually will), or D) cheat on you. The odds are overwhelming that one of those four things are going to happen, no matter how sweet, submissive, feminine, or religious she is, or how great her upbringing was, or if her parents are still married, etc.

These factors are true if she lives in the USA, Spain, Norway, Ukraine, Romania, Argentina, the Philippines, or any other New Country you have in mind. Again, it might be easier to get laid in those places, so if your goal is to be a sex tourist and nothing else, then have at it. But there aren't any Unicorn Women in these countries, because there aren't any Unicorn Women anywhere.

Sadly, phase three isn't the end. I see many Alphas on the quest for Ms. Unicorn Woman eventually enter phase four…

Phase Four

Phase four is where things get really depressing:

WTF? I moved to New Country and it was great for a while but now all the women here are are bitchy, feministy, trashy sluts too! God damn Apple and their fucking iPhones! Fucking left-wingers! Fucking consumer culture! They've even corrupted the women HERE too! NOW where the hell is my Unicorn Woman! How can I be happy? ARRRRGGHH!!

Phase four is the Alpha Male equivalent of the woman in her early to mid 50s who's suddenly realized with horror that she's wasted her entire life looking for a man who doesn't exist. The guy in phase four is now angry and jaded beyond belief, and has no where to go. Many of these guys still think there are Unicorn Women, but that Western culture has transformed them all into slutty bitches. As I said above, they're actually half right, in that Societal Programming is 50% of this problem. However, the other 50% is biology, and SP has nothing to do with that.

The Solution

If you're a man reading this, you're my brother. I want you to be happy. I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm going to tell you exactly how to not waste your life looking for something that isn't real, and to live a life full of masculine happiness.

1. Never get 100% sexually monogamous (unless you enjoy drama). Never promise absolute sexual monogamy to a woman (because you'll cheat and she'll find out) and never expect a woman to be monogamous (because she'll eventually either leave, restrict sex, or cheat). Have a serious OLTR instead of a girlfriend, or have an OLTR marriage instead of a standard marriage.

2. Unless you're already both over age 60, never emotionally expect any relationship to last "the rest of your life." For people under 60, ALL RELATIONSHIPS ARE TEMPORARY. Expecting something to last two or three years, or five years, or perhaps even 10 years is fine. Expecting it to last 45 years is Guy-Disney, and now you're insane.

3. Never logistically or legally plan on a woman being around "the rest of your life." It doesn't matter how Alpha you are, we don't live in that world any more. I'm sorry, but we just don't. Never get legally married. If you can't control yourself and get legally married anyway, make sure you make her sign an enforceable prenup, live in a region that actually enforces those, make sure she signs it at least six months before the wedding (12 months is better), have the signing witnessed by a judge, and keep your finances separate during the marriage. If you want kids, make sure you both sign and file a parenting plan before anyone gets pregnant.

4. Most importantly, realize that unicorns don't exist. We make fun of women all the time for believing in fairy tale bullshit; we men must follow our own advice. There isn't some perfect, forever loyal, forever sexual woman waiting for you just beyond the next hill, just beyond the next lay, or even beyond the ocean. In the real world, even the "perfect" woman for you, even a woman you love very much, is going to have some aspects to her you'll strongly dislike. Moreover, she'll be hard-coded with the eventually-get-bored-with-you behaviors whether you like it or not (never promising monogamy alleviates this though).

If you follow the above advice, you can still find happiness via pair bonding to a special girl; just do it in a way that is congruent to real-life realities.

The post Men's Great Flaw: Looking For The Unicorn Woman appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Older Women vs. Younger Women – Chemistry vs. Attraction

September 21, 2015, 5:00 am

Many years ago when I was dating a lot more women over the age of 33, I heard them often use a particular word during the first few dates. This word: chemistry. Many women at this age range used this word a lot. They spoke of it as if it was something very important and very hard to find. It was a big deal to them.

Interestingly, I never heard any women under the age of 33 using this word. Actually, I can tell you for a fact that I have never heard a woman under the age of 33 using this word in a dating context in my entire life. Yet women over 33 use this word all the time when dating.

I found this very interesting and started to examine this further.

Women over the age of 33 are correct; "chemistry" is quite rare. It's quite possible for a woman over the age of 33 to go on ten first dates and not have "chemistry" with any of those men, forcing her to continue her search. However, if a woman under the age of 33 goes on ten first dates, she's very likely to find at least one guy she likes a great deal, regardless of if she finds chemistry or not.

Why is this?

This is because, generally speaking, women over the age of 33 are looking for chemistry, while women under the age of 33 are looking for attraction. These are two very different things.

Attraction

Attraction is achieved when a woman is A) turned on by you at least to some degree and B) feels at least somewhat safe with you.

Whether or not she feels safe with you is based solely on your behavior during dates. This is tied to being horny vs. being sexual, something I cover in detail in my ebooks. Horny is threatening and a turn-off. Sexual is attractive and safe.

Whether or not she feels attracted to you is a result of her embedded number and how well you rank against that number based on your appearance and behavior. I explain that in this article here.

Attraction isn't very complicated. If she likes you and feels at least somewhat safe, you're in. She'll have sex with you relatively quickly. Even if you screw a few things up, she'll still probably have sex with you. Of course you can completely screw things up and lose her before you have sex, but that usually means you didn't make her feel safe; she was probably still attracted to you but she couldn't go there because she felt threatened in some way.

Chemistry

Chemistry sounds like it's the same as attraction, but it's a completely different thing. It's much more complicated and delicate.

Attraction is the combination of being turned on and feeling safe.

Chemistry is the combination of attraction and compliance to a predetermined checklist.

Attraction is one key component of chemistry. She has to be attracted to you or there's no chemistry. However, once she's attracted to you, she now needs another layer of complexity that most younger women don't care about. You now need to comply with a checklist of qualities she's preselected for the ideal boyfriend or husband. Since most women over age 33 in the dating pool are provider hunters, this extra aspect is important to them.

You're on a first date with a 37 year-old woman looking for chemistry. You both start talking, and you look good to her. You're able to carry on a conversation without looking like a dork, and you're not too needy. Now she's attracted. Well done, but she's not looking for attraction. She's looking for chemistry.

Half an hour into the conversation you're both talking about your pasts, and you mention you voted for George W. Bush. She's a left-winger, so immediately you've violated one of the items on her internal checklist ("He can't be a conservative."). You also mention several times that you really enjoy going fishing. She visualizes how gross fish are and how much they stink. Unwittingly, you've violated another item on her list ("He needs to be a clean-cut guy.").

You don't have to actually say something to violate a chemistry-seeker's checklist. It's very easy to destroy chemistry nonverbally. Maybe you have a habit of scratching the back of your hand, or of brushing hair away from your forehead. Maybe the tone of voice you use with the waitstaff isn't what she would visualize the ideal future boyfriend/husband would use. So even if you carefully control everything you say during a first date (which you should) you can still easily violate a woman's checklist and make chemistry impossible.

After the date, you text her and she doesn't respond. You never hear from her again. When her girlfriend asks about the date, she casually remarks that you were a cute and cool guy but there "wasn't any chemistry."

It's not that she wasn't attracted to you. She was! You simply violated a few items on her list, eliminating the feminine concept of "chemistry."

Two weeks later you go out on first date with a 26 year old woman. During this date, you look good and carry yourself well. She's attracted. You also make the same mistakes again by mentioning you voted for George W. Bush and love to go fishing a lot. This 26 year-old, just like the 37 year-old, is also a big left-winger and hates men who fish. When you mention Bush and fishing, she frowns, perhaps makes a negative comment, but it's no big deal. She's still attracted, so it's okay. She's not looking for chemistry. She's looking for attraction.

A few hours later she has sex with you, and it's amazing for both of you. Six months later, you're both still dating, really care for one another, and are both having a great time. During all this, that 37 year-old woman is still going out on first dates, looking for chemistry, not finding it, getting exasperated, and bitching about "where have all the good men gone?"

While the 26 year-old, seeking attraction, is having orgasms with you and having a great time. The 37 year-old, seeking chemistry, goes home to her vibrator.

Which one is happier?

Which one has a more positive view of dating?

Which one has a more positive view of men?

If you've been on lots of first dates with women over age 33 and under age 33 like I have, you already know the answer.

Your Influence Over Attraction vs. Chemistry

Attraction is directly within your control. You have vast control over your physical appearance, your fashion, and how you behave on a first and second date. Of course you can't have sex with any woman you want; that's a PUA myth. However, by controlling these three variables, you can create attraction with a much higher percentage of women you meet. I'm living proof of this. Years ago I had lots of trouble creating attraction because all three of those variables were not optimal. Today they are (within reasonable constraints), so creating attraction on a first or second date for me is very easy. My results reflect this, as will yours.

Chemistry isn't really within your realm of control at all. Since attraction is 50% of chemistry, you can improve your odds of chemistry a little by ensuring attraction more often. The problem is you don't know the exact checklist of that woman sitting next to you at the bar or standing next to you at the bookstore. The only way to ensure you create chemistry with a new woman (once you have attraction) is to extract a copy of her checklist from her brain, memorize it, and then make sure not to say or do anything that violates anything on that list.

Worse, you may find items on that list unacceptable to you. I don't like to wait for sex past the second date, and refuse to wait past the third. So I've destroyed chemistry with many over-33 women who were very attracted to me simply because I tried to have sex with them on the second or even third date. Since one of the items on their checklist was "He's a gentleman and doesn't try to have sex with me before we've been dating for a few weeks," I violated chemistry (on purpose in this case) and I was out.

The point is, even if I was aware those women had that rule, I would have violated that rule anyway. I'm not waiting for five or six dinner dates before I have sex with someone. Are you fucking kidding me? What if she decides to dump me on dinner date number four? (Which, by the way, women do to guys all the time, and did to me back when I was stupid enough to go along with this system.)

Again, the level of attraction these women feel for you is completely irrelevant, and this is key point many Alphas misunderstand when I discuss the problems with getting to sex quickly with women over the age of 33. I've relayed real-life stories before about over-33, chemistry-seeking women I was on dates with who were so turned on by me that even though they resisted sex when I tried, they instead ran home, masturbated while thinking about me, and texted me and told me all about it. I had attraction nailed, but I didn't achieve chemistry. So I never had sex with these women.

This is one of the many reasons I stopped cold-approaching (online or in real life) any women over the age of 33 several years ago, and never regretted that decision. Every first date with new woman I have these days is with a woman seeking attraction, not chemistry. Attraction is largely within my control, and I have that nailed, so my results on any given under-33 dating blitz are always good.

I still have sex with women over 33 all the time; I love older women, but these are women I already know somehow. They're not strangers I met at the grocery store or on a dating site. If you already know them, the need for chemistry is short-circuited, so it's not nearly as much of a problem. However, if I'm looking to schedule first dates with strangers, I never go above age 33 no matter how attractive they are or how eager they seem. The vast majority of those women are looking for chemistry, not attraction, therefore going out on a first date with a woman like this is going to be a waste of both my time and my money.

Even worse, as an Alpha Male 2.0, I'm almost guaranteed to violate several items on her checklist no matter how careful I am. Of course I could lie, but I refuse to lie to women in order to get laid or to establish a relationship. Lying = drama, and I don't do drama, so I don't lie. I'd rather next Ms. Inflexible and move on to the next woman on the list.

Beta males (and the Alpha 1.0s who are good actors) have better odds…or rather, less bad odds at violating these internal feminine rules.

So next time a woman starts talking about "chemistry," be aware that she's talking about something you have almost no control over, and it might be time to cut your losses and get out of there.

The post Older Women vs. Younger Women – Chemistry vs. Attraction appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

---

Do Smarter Women Have More Problems In Life?

October 8, 2015, 5:00 am

Klaus, a reader, wrote in with this question:

Your book is one of the best I've ever read but I have a question. On page 203 of the digital version, you say this:

…women see the world, process information, and make decisions using completely different criteria than you do, sometimes in ways that may actually seem irrational or even insane to us men. This is true even if the woman is extraordinarily intelligent, knowledgeable, mature, successful, and/or educated. As a matter of fact, often those very qualities exacerbate a woman's irrational tendencies, not lessen them.

You don't continue with the last thought. Are you saying that women of greater intelligence or education are more irrational? Or something else? Thanks for one amazing book!!!!

Do I think smarter women, older women, more successful women, and/or more educated women are more irrational than dumber, younger, less successful, or less educated women?

No. I see a plenty of extremely irrational behavior from dumb, or young, or uneducated women. The problem is that I also see this same level of irrational behavior from women who are more intelligent and educated.

It gets a little more complicated than that, so I'll do my best to explain the statement I made in the book (which I stand by). It's an issue of correlation rather than causation. I don't think there's causation between intelligence/education and irrationality in the female psyche. However, I've seen so much correlation to this stuff over many years of my life, and with so many women, that I'm convinced there's something to this.

This observation isn't anything new. I started noticing this way back in 2007-08 when I started dating lots of women after my divorce. I was separated in February of 2007, started dating almost immediately, and by the end of 2008 I had dated quite a bit of women (albeit badly, since I didn't yet have my online dating or open relationships systems fully formulated).

At the end of 2008, I noticed a very interesting pattern with the women I had dated and encountered. The more intelligent the woman, the more chaos and problems she tended to have in her life. It's true that the very dumb women also tended to have more problems, but it wasn't as consistent a pattern as with the more intelligent ones.

About 90% of the time, if a woman was very intelligent, she had major problems with her work, or her finances, or her kids (if she had any), or her ex, or her boss, or her family, or whatever. Moreover, it was usually many of these areas, not just one or two. Yet if I encountered a woman of average intelligence, her life was usually pretty smooth sailing; no major problems or catastrophes. Women who were actually dumb were either problem free or had one, very big problem (usually having to do with a baby daddy), but that was about it. This was quite different than the smart women who tended to have all kinds of problems in many different areas of their lives.

I remember thinking that my observations were simply a weird result of my data set. I was reasonably confident that as I dated more women, I would find that intelligence would not correlate to more problems and drama in a woman's life.

However, to my surprise, as time went on and I dated more women, the pattern continued. The really smart women, regardless of age, tended to have multiple problems in their lives that were constantly stressing them out. Really dumb women tended to have one big problem, and women of average intelligence seemed to be relatively happy and usually have their shit together.

Hear me on this: I'm not saying all smart women have lots of problems. I've known plenty of smart women who had smooth, happy lives, and known average-intelligence women or dumb women who had lots of problems. I am saying that the correlation I've noticed between smart women and lots of life problems has been so damn consistent over such a long period of time with so many women, that I think there's something to this.

I admit I could be wrong here, that this is completely unscientific, and that it's entirely possible the group of women I happened to have dated over the last near-decade might be a statistical anomaly. So I'll open this up to the comments.

If you've dated (that means had sex multiple times) many women, think back to how smart each of these women were, then think back to how many stressful problems they had. Do you notice correlation between high intelligence and more problems? Or not?

I have some strong theories about this, but I'll save those for a future post. In the meantime, let me know in the comments, and maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

The post Do Smarter Women Have More Problems In Life? appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

How Happiness Works Over Time

February 15, 2016, 5:00 am

The primary focus of everything I discuss, in all the areas I write and speak about, is how to achieve long-term, consistent happiness. I don't mean happy now but angry or sad later. That's easy. I mean a strong level of happiness that lasts decades long. I wrote an entire book on the subject that I strongly recommend you get if you haven't yet. One of the concepts I talk about is the Happiness Change Curve (depicted above) and how you can use the fluctuations of happiness to achieve your goals. It's the result of an analysis of how your happiness levels change over time based on your personality and decisions.

If we rank happiness on a scale from 1 to 10, then measure it over time, how does it fluctuate? How do our actions and attitudes modify this fluctuation? Today we'll examine this using some fun nerdy visuals.

Let's take the typical man first. Since most men are beta males, how does a beta male's happiness fluctuate over time? Imagine a beta; the typical skinnyfat guy who works at some corporate job he doesn't really like, married to the typical average-looking, nonsexual chubby woman, and who has a few kids. His happiness looks like this: (click graphs to zoom)

The typical beta's happiness is always around "okay," floating in the range of 4-6 on our 1 to 10 scale. He's not necessarily miserable, but he's not happy. His life is calm, predictable, and socially acceptable, but also boring and limited. He can't do what he wants, he doesn't have a lot of sex, and excitement is rare. He's doomed to live a life of mediocrity and moderate happiness for the rest of his life unless he makes some radical changes.

Now let's look at how happy the typical woman is:

As you can see, most women are basket cases of exciting highs and dramatic lows. Sometimes she's happy as can be, almost ecstatic. Other times she's depressed, angry, frustrated, or in the middle of drama with her husband, boyfriend, ex, boss, co-worker, girlfriend, sister, mom, dad, or whomever.

Happy or angry, she's never at that state for very long. Within a few hours or days, she's back to the other extreme again. As I describe in the book, this is biological and secretly how she likes it. Being happy all the time would actually be a little boring to her. Unlike most men, she needs a wide array of both positive and negative feelings in order to feel "alive." She likes being happy, but she also likes drama and problems too, at least to some degree, even if she doesn't admit it.

Now let's look at the Alpha Males. Since the vast majority of Alpha Males are Alpha 1.0s, we'll examine the Alpha Male 1.0 first.

As you can see, unlike the beta, the Alpha Male 1.0 is able to experience great happiness, fulfillment, and excitement in his life. He's free to live his live as he chooses most of the time (though not always), and he's competent enough to get results in the areas important to him.

On the flip side, happiness is not his primary objective in life. He likes happiness of course, but his primary goal is to control and to be heard. Because of this, he semi-regularly experiences problems like drama, anger, loneliness, and/or conflict.

He gets a new (monogamous) girlfriend. He's super happy. Then he bosses her around, she resists, and they argue. Now he's unhappy. They have makeup-sex and everything is great again. Then she dumps him. He's very unhappy. Then he uses his PUA skills and has sex with a bunch of new girls. He's happy. Then he reflects at how meaningless it all is. Now he's unhappy. Then he fucks more girls. Happy again. Then he gets busy with work and goes through a long dry spell where he doesn't have sex for five months. Unhappy again. Then he gets a new girlfriend. Happy again. Then he orders her around and has drama. Unhappy again.

On and on this pattern goes for the rest of his life. Very happy often, also regularly unhappy. Unlike a woman, the Alpha 1.0 doesn't like being unhappy, but he considers regular unhappiness as "worth the price" of ensuring people follow his program and making sure they listen to and "respect" him.

Now let's look at what this blog and my book is all about, the Alpha Male 2.0's usual happiness pattern:

The Alpha 2.0 has structured his attitude and his life to achieve long-term, consistent happiness. His happiness level fluctuates between 8 and 10, just about all the time. The only time his happiness drops below an 8 is when something very unusual happens outside of his control, like one of his parents dies. Thankfully, these kinds of events are very rare.

He makes a decently high income doing something he likes, and aligned with his Mission, without working long hours. He never does monogamy yet is decent at long-term relationships, so he constantly has all the sex he wants, with the emotional connected experience of a relationship (if he wants it), butwithout most of the PUA/pickup work. Nor does he ever have dry spells (again, unless he choses to have one).

Unlike his Alpha 1.0 brother, he doesn't tell women what to do, nor does he care, so he has virtually zero drama or conflict in his personal life. Instead, he focuses on his Mission which creates even more happiness. Unlike his beta brother, he's 100% free to do whatever the hell he wants, at all times.

Because his lifestyle looks odd to most of society, he doesn't quite get the accolades or respect from friends and family that the beta gets and that the Alpha 1.0 sometimes gets. However, the Alpha 2.0 is outcome independent, so he doesn't care. He's too busy being happy while smiling at the unhappy world around him.

Now let's switch gears and look at how some of your life decisions affect your long-term happiness patterns. Usually, doing what society says is appropriate actually makes you less happy. The tricky part is that this unhappiness often slowly sneaks up on you. Let's look at a few examples. Remember to click the graphs if you can't read them.

I'll start with an easy one: getting a girlfriend. Everyone wants a girlfriend, right? I'm talking here about the standard monogamous type, not an OLTR. How does your happiness look when you get a girlfriend over time?

When you get a girlfriend, this is what happens almost every time:

During the first few months of NRE, your happiness skyrockets to 10 and you think you've hit the jackpot. Over time, the two of you become more "comfortable" with each other and that's when the boredom and drama start kicking in. For a while you're still happier than when you were single, but your average levels of happiness continue to decline ever so slowly.

Eventually, you're less happy in your relationship than you were outside of a relationship. Then she puts the final bullet in your head and dumps you, and you feel like absolute shit. Eventually, your happiness begins the slow climb back up to where it was when you were single. It's very predictable, and happens in the vast majority of standard boyfriend / girlfriend relationships. Serial monogamists thrive on these up-and-down highs and lows.

Let's kick it up a notch and look at what happens to your happiness when you actually get married:

As I've explained many times, and as all the stats and your own anecdotal experience shows, here's what usually happens when you get married. During the engagement, wedding planning, wedding, reception, honeymoon, moving in together, and perhaps that first baby, you're on cloud nine and you're the Happiest You've Ever Been™. But then, slowly but surely, the drama increases, the sex decreases, you start remembering all the stuff you want to do with your life that you're not allowed to do anymore because your Wife Won't Let You™. Then you hit the three year mark and your wife almost completely shuts off the sex because she's sexually bored with you now. Say hello to a new, permanent, lower level of average happiness, below your average level of happiness when you were unmarried.

Since we're talking about marriage, it's only fair we talk about your happiness during a divorce too:

When you get divorced it's pretty bad, and your happiness level is in the toilet for a while. You have to battle your wife and the law, both of which are allied against you. However, as I've discussed before, once most of the crap is taken care of (moving out, the ex-wife calms down, the legal divorce is over or at least on its way, visitation with kids is established, etc), then you suddenly feel a rush of happiness and euphoria (10 on our scale) unlike anything you've probably felt before. You'll be so happy you won't belive it. Over time, your natural habits will take over and you'll descend back to a standard level of happiness, perhaps a 6 or a 7, which is the same level you had before you got married, but well above what you had when you were married.

Here's another fun one I've talked about before as well. Kids! Just about everyone wants kids someday, right? Well, let's see what happens to your happiness when you do this:

When a person goes from childless to parent, average happiness goes down, and stays down, until 20 years later when the kid grows up and moves out of the house. Every study done on this topic shows the same pattern, even though because of Societal Programming most people are too horrified to admit this. They equate admitting unhappiness as a parent to not loving their children, which of course have nothing to do with each other. Scott Adams just made an interesting blog post about this right here.

The reason people say they're "so happy" or "happier" being a parent is because when they're saying this, they're thinking about the isolated moments of joy that occur when you have kids, particularly when they're very little and still cute. Yes, that little two-year old bastard has been keeping you up for the last four days, creating constant messes you have to clean up, and stressing the fuck out of you, but then one day in the kitchen he looks up at you with his big brown eyes and his fat little face with mashed potatoes all over his mouth, looks you right in the eye, and says in his cute little voice, "I wub bu daddy." Then you melt, and your happiness goes to 10 for about three minutes before it plunges back to it's usual parenting 4. When people ask you how happy you are to be a dad, you remember that little moment, not the pain prior that lasted four entire days.

I hope these visuals have been helpful. Personal happiness is the most important topic there is. If there are any other ways I can educate on this, please let me know.

Note: I'm offering a $500 cash prize (and other cool stuff) for the best success story using any of the concepts I talk about. Go here for contest details. The deadline is Feb 22nd!

The post How Happiness Works Over Time appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

One of the Reasons Why Women Don't Want To Be Happy

November 24, 2016, 5:00 am

Many years ago, I visited one of my business clients at his home. He was a kind, religious man who owned a successful plumbing company with several locations, was married, and had five small children. His wife and kids were pleasant, but they were the typical rambunctious children you'd expect. Having grown up in a family with five children myself, I was well accustomed to seeing the constant chaos of a household where the parents were actually crazy enough to have five kids. It made me smile, though I knew that having that many children would never be something I would do; my long-term happiness is too important to me.

The visit was enjoyable and uneventful, until I saw something very interesting. So interesting in fact, that it's the only thing I remember from the visit, and I never forgot it.

Several of the kids had been playing in the living room and had then left to go play in the basement. They had left a huge mess in the living room; toys, legos, trash, half-used plates and other dishes, crap like that. It looked like a disaster area. Once again, I was accustomed to seeing things like this from my own upbringing.

I was in the hallway talking to the husband when I saw the wife enter the room from the far side. She walked into the living room, saw the mess, and was immediately upset. I was close enough to hear her mumbling, angry curses under her breath, sighing loudly, and shaking her head. She was rightfully pissed that the kids had left such a huge mess.

Then she did something very strange. She angrily grabbed a large bag, kneeled down on the floor, and started shoving toys into the bag, putting them away. She was clearly upset as she was doing this, shoving the toys in the bag hard, like she was ramming a hammer down on nails. The more she did it, the more upset she became.

I could clearly tell what she was thinking: "This is BULLSHIT that I have to sit here and put these kids' damn toys away! Ugh!!"

I'm no parenting expert, but I am a man who has raised two children (along with their mother, who I will admit gets more than 50% of the credit) to become happy and successful young adults. I have two chapters in my book on exactly how I did this, which some people have told me are the most interesting chapters in the book. For those of you who don't have kids, let me explain to you the correct way of dealing with a scenario like this.

If your small children leave a huge mess in the living room, you go to them and tell them to stop whatever they're doing and clean it up.

That's it. Problem solved.

I'll address the excuses that I know some women will attempt to point out in the comments. If the kids are currently doing something productive, like homework, then you tell them to clean up their mess as soon as they're done. If they bitch and complain, you just ignore them and leave. (They're little kids. It doesn't matter what they say.)  If they actually refuse to clean up their mess (which is unlikely if you've parented them correctly), you give them a time out, and do so without anger or lectures. Either way, you go right back to whatever you were doing.

It's not your responsibility to clean up your kids' messes. You have better things to do. It's your kids' responsibility. Cleaning up their messes for them will just make you angrier. Moreover, cleaning up your kids' messes will ensure your kids grow up to be lazy, weak, self-entitled pricks who vote for people like Bernie Sanders. But that's a topic for another time.

It didn't occur to this mom to do any of this. She was angry they had left a huge mess, then instantly assumed that it was her responsibility to clean it all up, and become even angrier that she "had" to do this.

One more story…

Way back, about 16-17 years ago, when I was married and my kids were little, we moved into a new house with a nice, new lawn. One day, I was in the kitchen eating something when the wife walked in and told me to mow the lawn, since the grass was getting long.

"No problem," I said. "I'll have Josh mow it." Josh was my son, and he was about nine years old at the time. This was the same age I was when I had to mow the lawn when I was a boy. Actually, since we lived further out in the country, I had to mow three big lawns. My son only had to mow two small suburban lawns; he was getting a good deal.

"No," she said. "You should mow the lawn."

"Me?" I said. "I have an able-bodied nine year-old son. Why should I mow it when I've got one of those? That's one of the advantages of having kids, Sweetie. You can put 'em to work. He'll mow the lawn and I'll pay him an allowance for it. It will be good."

"He shouldn't have to do it," she said, growing irritated.

"Why not?" I said, quite confused. "I'm going to go work in the garage. He has nothing else better to do. Just look at him." I pointed over to the living room. It was a Sunday morning and he was lying on the floor with his blanket watching cartoons.

She blew up. She launched into a huge tirade about how horrible it was to make your poor, innocent, fragile child do the dreadful, back-breaking work of pushing a self-propelled lawnmower around two small lawns for 20 minutes. That was a job for a husband, not a poor, innocent, fragile, little child.

Not knowing anything about women back then, I did what all ignorant men do when their wife or girlfriend gets upset: I used logic. I didn't know back then that logic never works on angry women. It just makes them angrier.

I calmly, logically, and rationally explained to her that when I was younger than him, I mowed not just two lawns every weekend, but three. I also told her that unlike our nice, high-tech lawnmower that was partially self-propelled (the two front wheels moved automatically via an internal motor, making it much easier to push), I had to use a normal, cheapass lawnmower that I had to push manually because my father couldn't afford anything better.

I also explained that most of my lawns were on a slope, so back when I was little, I had to push the lawnmower up steep inclines, whereas our son just has to mow two lawns on level ground. I also rationally explained that when I was a kid, our lawns were covered with large pinecones, and fragments of these would often fire out from the bottom of the lawnmower like small bullets, shooting me in the legs (which were often bare because I was wearing shorts for the hot summer), causing welts and bleeding. There were no pinecones in our lawns, so our son wouldn't have this problem.

Essentially, not only was our son not going to do anything evil or difficult, but he would be doing something orders of magnitude easier than what I did when I was his age. I also would pay him every time he did it, teaching him cause and effect and a good work ethic.

Since man-logic always makes angry women even angrier, she turned brick red and exploded at me. She started screaming and yelling that I was a lazy man and a horrible father, and that I didn't respect her. When she was all done, I simply shrugged and told her that I wasn't mowing the lawn. He could mow it, and it wasn't a big deal.

She fumed and left the room. A few minutes later, she was outside mowing the lawn, all the while with a furious, angry look on her face.

From then on, until we moved into a different house, every weekend during the warmer months she would angrily go mow the lawn while my son laid on the floor with his blanket and watched cartoons.

I don't have the space here to relate all the other examples and stories that I've seen over my 44 years of life, where women purposely and needlessly create scenarios where they make themselves unhappy. I can think of 10 more stories like this just off the top of my head. You could argue that men do things like this too, and they do, but based on decades of anecdotal experience, the degree to which men sabotage their own happiness like this pales in comparison to how often women do this.

As I describe in detail in my book, women are incapable of long-term consistent happiness. The primary reason for this is that instead of happiness, women crave a range of positive and negative emotions. However, one of the other reasons is that they will go out of their way to avoid any perceived inconvenience for certain other people in their life, especially their kids, even when this kind of thing is more than warranted, reasonable, and a good idea for all involved.

You will never convince women, logically, to stop doing this. Likely, you're going to see some comments here (or I will see in my email) from women complaining that the two women I described above were perfectly in the right. You will never convince a woman that taking on additional unhappiness for herself, for no reason, in scenarios like these harm not only herself, but the very people she's trying to protect.

Some people will also assume that I'm somehow bashing women or against women by pointing this out. If you're a longtime reader of my blogs, you know that I love women very much, beyond words. That's why I want them to be happy, and that's why it's so sad to see women spend their entire lives doing these things to themselves.

Oh well. As usual, women can do whatever they want. I'll be over here being happy.

The post One of the Reasons Why Women Don't Want To Be Happy appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Pro's and Con's: Older Women vs. Younger Women

April 27, 2017, 5:00 am

There are great things about dating younger women, and very bad things. There are great things about dating older women, and very bad things. Today I will examine both in detail.

First, as always, we need to get our definitions straight. What exactly does "older" or "younger" mean?

Longtime readers know that in general, I separate the "older" vs. "younger" at age 33. As I've discussed many times here, when a woman crosses over age 33 (if not sooner), her ASD spikes into the stratosphere and her entire attitude about dating, men, and sex changes forever. Things that used to be enjoyable to her, like sex on the first or second date, or very casual sexual relationships, are now suddenly horrible and largely unacceptable.

That doesn't mean dating women over 33 is 100% bad. In this article and this one I discuss the good things about dating women over 33 and how to navigate some of the problems they present.

"Younger" women, therefore, are women age 32 and under. A third category, Very Young Women or VYW are women under the age of 23. For purposes of this article, when I say "younger," I'm talking about women age 18-32, and when I say "older," I'm talking about women 33+, unless otherwise stated. It's true there are several subcategories within these two broad groups, but I already covered them here.

Older vs. Younger Overview

Before I get into this, remember that everything I'm saying here is a generalization. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are some very independent, organized, responsible, mature 18 year-old girls, and there are some very low-ASD 38 year-olds who will bang you on the first date within an hour or two of meeting you with no resistance at all. Yeah, yeah. Doesn't matter. In both cases, these women are unusual exceptions to the rule. They actually prove the rule. I am not interested in discussing the unusual exceptions to the rule (other than acknowledging that they do indeed exist) and I will ignore any comments complaining that I'm generalizing (because I am) and that there are rare, unusual exceptions out there (duh, I know).

Alrightee. Everything I say is within the context of the fast sex dating model I practice and teach, which is represented here (click to zoom):

In this model, there are three separate phases: the pickup phase (getting a woman to agree to meet with you one-on-one), the dating phase (getting to sex as fast as possible, ideally on the second date/meet within 3-4 hours of total face time), and the relationship management phase (ongoing sex via a casual or serious relationship, either of which are nonmonogamous).

Generally speaking, younger women are much easier in the pickup/dating phases, but tend to be harder and more work long-term in the relationship phase. The younger they are, the more these are both true. In other words, a 18 year-old is going to be very easy during pickup/dating phase and an absolute cluster fuck during the long-term relationship phase, whereas a 28 year-old is going to be less easy during pickup/dating and less difficult during the relationship phase.

Older women tend to be the exact opposite. They are absolute nightmares in the pickup/dating phases, but if you are somehow able to persevere, put up with all the ASD, bullshit, woman logic, and ridiculous demands (and in the case of the fast sex model, get very lucky with sex that occurs relatively quickly), then ongoing relationships tend to be easier and more reliable with these women.

The problem is the words fast sex. I personally don't like waiting more than two or three dates with zero sex, since I don't see the point, and there are too many pretty women in the world who are perfectly happy having sex on date two. If you feel the same way as I do, most relationships you'll have will be with younger women (under age 33 or so) simply because most women over 33 won't ever get to the point of having a relationship you, because they'll insist on making you wait too long for sex, causing you to next them and go have sex with the 26 year-old around the corner who won't make you wait.

Of course you could follow a more traditional, beta male type of dating, where you have five or more dates before you have sex (ugh, kill me), and thus get more relationships with older women, but getting to sex slowly like that isn't what this blog or my books are about.

Other Pro's and Con's

With all that being said, here are a list of other pro's and con's. They are listed in no particular order.

1. Reliability and Scheduling – Older women win here. In terms of keeping a reliable schedule for meets and dates, younger women are difficult, and VYW are extremely difficult. Older women, even those who are single mothers, tend to be more reliable and less flaky. Granted, all women are flakey to some degree (it's core part of being female), but the flaky factor drops significantly when a women gets over age 30 and again when she gets over age 35. VYW are a lot of fun, but god damn, the constant flaking, forgetting, rescheduling, emergencies and cancelling gets extremely irritating, particularly when you're a busy guy juggling work, family, multiple women, Mission, etc.

2. Easy Compliance – Younger women win here, big time. Younger women are far more likely to go along with any agenda you set for them than older women, who tend to be strongly opinionated and set in their ways. (Older men are the same, by the way, including me.) As always, the younger the woman, the more compliant she tends to be (though there are certainly exceptions, particularly in the sugar daddy world).

3. Drama – Older women win here; not by much, but they do. Women over 33 indeed tend to be less drama overall in ongoing relationships. I'm not saying older women are zero drama, or even low drama. (All women are drama to some degree.) I'm saying that they tend to have less drama than younger women, who are usually more touchy, whiny, bitchy, and/or complain about stupid shit more often.

There are two reasons for this. Younger women tend to be more connected with the fact that they're young and hot, therefore subconsciously think they can throw more drama and crap at a man, which he'll put up with. Also, younger men tend to put up with WAY more drama than older guys, and since younger women are more accustomed to younger men, they're more acclimated to higher-drama relationships.

4. Quality of Sex – I'm going to surprise many people here, and piss off a lot of women, since Societal Programming says that older women are better in bed. It's true that older women are more comfortable and understanding of their own bodies during sex than younger women, but are they better in bed than younger women?

All I can go from is my own experience, as well as the experience of the men I've communicated about this topic over many years. I've slept with a lot of older women and younger women, and I have to say that in general (and again, there are many exceptions), younger women tend to be better in bed.

I'm sorry, but it's true. During sex, younger women tend to be more excited, enthusiastic, willing to try new things, willing to follow instructions, and are way less picky. There's a light and eagerness in younger women's eyes during sex that frankly, most older women don't have. Many women in their 30's have had much of that "light" burned out of them by stressful kids, numerous failed relationships, financial pressures, and all kinds of another baggage. (Celebrity example: Britney Spears. Hit up YouTube, watch a few interviews of her when she was 19, then watch a few of her today. The first woman will be bubbly, enthusiastic and excited. The second woman is robotic with dead eyes.)

You could argue that some younger women are faking this enthusiasm during sex, and maybe under certain scenarios they are, but that reinforces my point; it shows they care more about your experience than an older woman who refuses to show any enthusiasm, fake or otherwise.

It's true that older women tend to orgasm easier during sex since they know their own bodies, and that many younger women either can't cum at all or take a very long time to do so. It's also true that there are some older women who will absolutely blow your mind and body during sex. Yet overall, I have to say that younger women tend to be better here. Frankly, this surprised me, since before my conversion to Alpha Male 2.0 status many years ago, I bought into the false SP that said "older women are better in bed."

5. Intelligence / Conversational Ability – This one is a little tricky, and it's the only one where the two basic categories of "younger" and "older" aren't enough. Instead, we need to break things back out into three categories: VYW (18-22 year olds), moderately young women (23-32 year-olds), and older women (33+).

One of my favorite things to do with a non-FB woman in my life is to just sit and talk to her. Many of you guys in my age group seem to agree this is an enjoyable thing to do with a woman.

Can you do this with VYW? No. Barring rare exceptions, you will not be able to do this with a woman this young, particularly if you are an older guy (over age 35). Many men point this out as one of the greatest disadvantages of younger women, and I agree (though I think drama and flakiness are bigger disadvantages). I analyzed this problem in detail here.

However, is there a noticeable difference between the conversational, intellectual ability of a woman in her mid to late 20's vs. a woman over 33? In my experience, not really. Assuming both women are of reasonable intelligence, I don't think women over 33 have any significant advantage in this area than younger women. (Of course there are low-intelligence idiots in any age range; I'm not talking about those, and those women should only be FB's anyway.)

Thus, the summary here is that women age 23 and over win here, women under 23 lose, and lose big.

6. Longevity of Relationships – Older women win here. If your objective is to get into a long, consistent relationship that's more serious than a FB, the older the woman is, the better your odds become, regardless of if it's an MLTR or OLTR (though OLTR will usually last longer than a MLTR if the woman is older). This actually flips the other way if we're talking about FB's; younger women will last far longer in FB's than older women will.

Older women tend to be much less comfortable with casual relationships (unless they're cheating on a husband/boyfriend and you're the guy on the side). My longest FB relationships tended to be with younger women (including VYW) and my longest more serious relationships (MLTR's, high-end MLTR's and OLTR) tended to last longer with women who were either over 30 or close to it. Many of you have reflected the same experience (though again, there are always exceptions).

7. Bodies – Again, I'm going to surprise many people here. Societal Programming, particularly in the manosphere, preaches that younger women have perfect bodies, and as soon as they cross over age 30, their SMV instantly plummets and their bodies instantly get disgusting.

I have not found this to be the case, at all. Indeed, I have encountered a hell of a lot of the exact opposite; younger women with stretch marks and other weirdness from babies, weight gain, smoking weed, drinking alcohol, tats, and piercings, and women over 30, often well over 30, with perfect, amazing, tight, trim, teenager-like bodies.

When women hit 40, then yes, I start so see a consistent set of problems with the naked female body. But prior to 40, I have to say that I've encountered too many women in their 30's with amazing bodies and too many women under 30 with average or problematic bodies.

I have found that women in their 20's (or legal teens) just don't give a shit about health, fitness, eating right, exercising, taking care of their skin, and staying thin, whereas women over 30's tend to be obsessed with this stuff. I have definitely seen this reflected in the numerous naked bodies I've been up close and personal with in terms of women in both categories.

Am I saying that women in their 30's have better bodies than women under 30? No, I can't go that far. I've been with too many perfect-bodied younger women.

However, I can say that in terms of women under 40, I consider the quality of the average naked body from the average American woman in her 20's and the average American woman in her 30's about a tie. It's about the same, on average, across the board, with about an equal spread of hot bodies and flawed bodies in both age groups. Over 40, most women do indeed lose that tie, so women under 40 definitely are better looking naked than those over 40. (Though this is rapidly changing as the entire human race continues to get younger-looking.)

I'm sure you could find some statistics that conflict with what I just said, i.e. perhaps statistically speaking there are more overweight women in their 30's than in their 20's. That might be true, but here's the thing; are you going to fuck a bunch of fat women in their 30's? Of course not. So overweight women aren't even relevant here (unless that's what you're into).

Therefore, in terms of the women in their 30's you'd actually have sex with, I don't see a huge disparity in body quality between modern Western women in their 30's and modern Western women in their 20's. I just don't. And I've looked. (Outside the West is an entirely different story, of course. On my flight back to the US from China recently, I saw a few women from Columbia… Oh my GOD.)

So Which Is Better?

Which are better? Younger or older? The answer is, it depends on who you are and what you want. If you want a bunch of fun, casual relationships, younger women are the way to go. If you're looking for a very long, serious relationship, going over age 33 might be a good idea (unless you yourself are younger than 33). If you're an older guy and want to bang younger chicks, then bang younger chicks. Have fun. But, if you're an older guy who wants to settle down for the long-term, choosing a much younger woman is insane. If fast sex is important to you, stick with younger women. You get the idea.

A smart Alpha 2.0 uses different age groups for different purposes. As just one example, my OLTR is in her late 30's, which is what I wanted. My FB's are all quite young, which again, is exactly what I wanted. You could consider FB's as great for younger women (including VYW) but raise the age bar a little for MLTR's and perhaps a little more for an OLTR (if OLTR is what you want).

My personal opinion is that I will still always focus on women under the age of 33 simply because I hate ASD and waiting for sex, though exceptions always slip through (including my current OLTR), particularly if my objective is something longer-term and more serious. You also have to adjust all of this based on your age. I just turned 45; if you're 30 or 55 you're going to prioritize things differently than I.

As always, start with what will make you long-term happy, and go from there. Forget about what society or women want for you.

The post Pro's and Con's: Older Women vs. Younger Women appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Why I Stopped Dating Russian Women

June 8, 2017, 5:00 am

I've mentioned before that several years ago, I completely stopped dating Russian women. I've discussed the general reasons, but I don't think I've ever given specifics as to why I made this decision. Today, I will demonstrate exactly why I had to very reluctantly, permanently boycott Russian women from my dating life.

As always, we need to get our definitions straight. When I say "Russian women," I mean not only women from Russia, but women from any former Soviet Union (FSU) country, including Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, etc. Most of the problematic women I encountered were indeed from Russia, but many were from its satellite countries as well. I have noticed literally no difference in the level of problems I'm about to describe between women from Russia and women from any of the smaller FSU countries.

So just remember that when I say "Russian" in this article, I really mean Russian + FSU women as well.

Secondly, I have zero experience dating women in Russia/FSU who actually live in Russia/FSU. 100% of my experience is with Russian women living in the West. I'm willing to concede that maybe Russian women actually living in Russia are different than Russian women living in the USA, but based on the many stories I've heard, I really doubt it. I'm just being clear that I have no experience with these women while they're living in their home countries; just those who live in the USA.

Lastly, I understand that there are exceptions to every rule. I will ignore any comments that say things like "Not all Russian women are like that" or "One time I met a Russian girl who was not like that." Yeah, I know, exception to the rule, but as always, the exception proves the rule. Generally speaking, what I'm about to say covers the vast majority of Russian women.

Russian women are the most beautiful women on Earth. Moreover, they're usually intelligent and are often great conversationalists. They also tend to be good in bed. At the same time, Russian women are usually angry, bitchy, demanding, dominant, and have sky-high levels of both drama and ASD. They combine all the worst characteristics of over-33 women (even if they're younger than 33), Dominants, Provider Hunters, and religious conservatives.

The time and effort necessary to overcome and/or deal with all of these negatives is not worth it, no matter how hot or smart they are, especially considering that the world is full of super hot non-Russian women.

Listed below are just a few experiences I had dating Russian women over a period of several years before I finally gave up on them. Note that most of these were many years ago, so if you have any critiques on my game or my actions, just remember that.

Russian Girl 1:

I was once on a first date with a Russian girl and we were more or less hitting it off. At about 30 minutes into the discussion, she asked me if I could drive her to a friend's house to drop something off. It was an odd request, but I went along with it because it was in the same neighborhood where we already were.

I drove her to her friend's house, and she got out, dropped something off, talked to her friend for a few minutes, and got back in my car. Good. I was worried I'd have to text her to hurry up. However, she then asks me if I can drive her to yet another place to run some kind of errand before taking her back home. I start shaking my head, but she pleads with me and says that it's very close.

After confirming that the location is indeed close, against my better judgment, I agree. I drive her to some little store where she needs to pick something up. She goes in, picks up her stuff, spends a few minutes, talks to someone for a bit, and then comes back out.

She then asks me to take her to another place. I say, "Sorry, sweetheart, but I'm not your taxi. I'll just take you home."

She yells, "FINE!" and angrily throws her package on the floor of my car, folds her arms, and looks out the window. Again, this is our first date; I had never met her before this.

All the way to her house, she gives me the silent treatment. When we arrive, she says nothing other than "BYE!" and slams my car door as she leaves.

I have never had a woman behave like this on a first date, before or since. I didn't text her back.

Russian Girl 2:

I once had a first date with a very hot Russian woman, about 28 years old. The first date went great. She was beautiful, intelligent, and we had a great conversation. She had a successful small business, doing biz both in the USA and Russia. I was very impressed.

I hit her up for a second date the day after and she eagerly agreed. On that second date, before we went into a fancy bar, we took a quick walk around an adjacent mall. At the Nordstrom's store, she stopped and started trying various perfumes. I could tell this was a very bad idea, so I gently prodded her to move along. She frowned at me, kept on smelling different perfumes, and asking the clerk there various questions.

Finally, after about ten minutes of this, she pointed at a certain bottle of perfume and told me she "really wanted it." Price tag: $150. "Very nice," I said.

"What do you think?" she asked, nodding her head at the perfume.

"What do I think about what?" I said.

"It's my birthday next week," she said, again nodding at the perfume.

"Great," I said.

Several times more, she kept trying to get me to buy this $150 bottle of perfume. Remember, this is at the start of the second date. We had only met one time before, and we had never had sex or anything else like that.

Finally, she realized I wasn't going to buy her the damn thing, so she relented, and we went to the bar. The rest of the date went just fine. In the car, while dropping her off back at her place, she got very sexual but didn't get to sex (she refused to go to my place and refused to let me into her place).

It was no big deal, and outside of the perfume shit, I had a good time.

The next day, I texted her and hit her up for a third meet. She then sent me a long, angry tirade about how I am a "very rude man" and how I "don't know how to treat women" and that she never wanted to see me again. When I asked what her issue was, she said, "It's my birthday next week! I can't believe you didn't buy me that perfume! I can't believe you! I only want to be with a man who treats women nicely!" When I reminded her that I bought her both drinks and some food at the bar, she said, "If I wanted to eat last night I would have stayed home and ate with my daughter!"

Those were her exact words.

Russian Girl 3

I once scheduled a first date with a Russian woman, about 25 years old. She had no car, so I picked her up at her apartment which was right by the bar we were going visit.

On my way over, she sent me a string of long texts about exactly where I was supposed to park. I thought it odd, but just shrugged and went with it. I parked where she said, and waited… and waited… and waited.

At ten minutes, I texted her. No response. Five minutes later, just as I was about to drive away, she responded saying that she'll be right down. I waited longer… And longer. I texted her again. She responded again (after five minutes) saying that she was "almost ready" and would be right down in a "few minutes."

I really considered driving away, but I waited. After almost 40 minutes of this bullshit, she comes down.

She gets in the car and almost immediately starts loudly complaining about her apartment, one of her girlfriends, and about my car. Remember, this is a first date so I had never met her in real life before. I could already tell this wouldn't go well.

She spends the entire first date loudly, and I mean loudly complaining about various different things, from her ex-boyfriend, to her mom, to politics, to her job, and just about everything else you can think of. I've been on an amount of first dates that numbers well into the triple digits, and I've never had a woman this brazenly scream a constant stream of negativity like that, not to mention making me wait 40 minutes.

Needless to say, I never texted her back after that.

Russian Girl 4:

I once briefly (you'll see why) dated a Russian woman who would literally do shots of vodka first thing in the morning, right after she woke up. I thought it was very strange and obviously a terrible idea, but since I'm outcome independent, it didn't bother me.

All was well until she started viciously attacking other women on my Facebook page. At one point, my sister-in-law (my brother's wife who even had the same last name as me) posted a friendly post on my personal Facebook page, and this Russian woman lost her mind. She started posting multiple comments about how my sister-in-law should "watch out" and how I was a "bad guy" and how she shouldn't post on my Facebook page anymore. She also started direct messaging another woman (a FB I hadn't seen in two years) after she liked one of my photos.

When I told her to stop doing that crap, she complained that I didn't text her when she had gone to Disneyland with her friends that prior weekend. I told her that indeed I had texted her on that Saturday, and that she was free to check her phone to verify this. She then started bitching at me about something else.

I hard nexted her ass and never saw her again. I don't do drama, especially stupid drama.

Russian Girl 5:

I was once on a first date with a very cute Russian girl, about 22 years old. Initially, she was very sweet and we got along great. (That's often a recurring theme with Russian women; they usually start out great. The insanity and anger only appears a little while later.)

Soon, she started asking about my marriage, divorce, and ex-wife. She asked why we got divorced and I gave her a very general answer about how she took some anti-depressant meds that made her crazy. She kept pushing for more specifics, much harder than any other woman on any first date I've ever had. Finally, I told her that I divorced my ex-wife because she got violent with me for the second time in a row, after clearly warning after the first time that if there ever was a second time, there would never be a third time.

This Russian girl was shocked and horrified, not that my ex-wife was violent, but that I left her.

"You divorced your wife because she hit you?" she asked.

"There were many other reasons besides that," I said, "But that was the straw that broke the camel's back, yeah."

"I can't believe you did that!" she cried, her eyes wide with this appalled look on her face.

"Why?" I asked, "Do you want your future husband hitting you?"

"Of course not," she said, "But couples hit each other all the time! You don't divorce someone just because of that!"

As she continued to stare at me like I was from another planet, I was bewildered at what I was hearing. I never saw her again, thank goodness.

Russian Girl 6:

I once had a super hot Russian girl, about 23, come over to my house for the second date, and for sex. As she was driving over, she started sending me the strangest texts that I've ever seen a woman send. She was literally giving me step-by-step instructions on how to behave. Things like,

"Don't touch me when I walk in the door. I don't like that."

"Be sure to take my coat when I walk in the door."

"I do not do anal so don't ask."

"I will only have sex in your bedroom, no where else in the house."

"Make sure the heat in the house is set very high. I get cold."

As I was laughing out loud at this insanity, I sent her a text saying, "You seem to be very nervous about all of this. I'm happy to do this some other time if you're feeling uncomfortable." She responded by saying, that no, everything was fine, and that she'll be there at 7 pm.

Needless to say, I didn't follow any of her stupid instructions. We had sex, yet despite the fact that she was super attractive (many men would consider her a perfect 10), it was the worst sex I've ever had outside of being monogamously married. She just laid there like a dead body, stiff as a board, and was constantly complaining. Don't move my leg like that. Don't grab my ass like that. Move over. I don't like that. Etc.

I never saw her again, thank god, but hilariously, she got married to some slobbering beta just five months after our encounter. Poor bastard. I give it four years.

Conclusion

Seriously folks, I could go on and on for many more pages about the insanity I've encountered with Russian women; these are just a few of my many stories. I have never had this much trouble with any other race of women, including non-Russian white women and even Hispanic women. This is why, with a heavy heart, I simply stopped dating all Russian women several years ago. It was a good decision, since I've never had a weird problem since. (It was a very similar experience to when I stopped cold approaching women over age 33.)

Unless you're a guy who likes drama (and I know there are some of you out there,) I recommend you do the same. If you live in the West, I do not recommend you even attempt to date Russian women unless you enjoy problems and bullshit. I have Russian friends and co-workers, and I have nothing against Russians personally, but the Russian people have a darkness within them that other races lack; a darkness that manifests all too often.

There are too many other beautiful women in the world who don't have this kind of anger and insanity. Focus on them, not the Russian women.

The post Why I Stopped Dating Russian Women appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Getting Horny – The Difference Between Men and Women

September 7, 2017, 5:00 am

A while back, I wrote two articles on men's levels of sex drive and women's levels of sex drive. I highly suggest you read both of them, as they highlight the distinct differences between the ways in which men and women experience sexual desire.

This article today is both a simplification and clarification of how men and women's sexual desire is distinctly different. The entire difference between how men and women experience horniness can be summed up in this simple statement:

Men are horny. Women are horny when they're horny.

I realize that statement may sound overly simplistic, even perhaps stupid, but that really does sum it all up.

Barring the unusual exception to the rule, men are horny pretty much all the time. This isn't our fault of course; our hard-wired biology compels us to spread our seed and have sex with as many women as possible. Because of this, you're probably horny all the time, more or less. Even if you're not thinking about sex during a particular moment, like when you're focused on some project, if a hot babe walks into the room and asks you to fuck her, you'll probably say yes (assuming your lifestyle allows this), or at least your answer will be "Give me two minutes."

Men are down for sex all the time. It's normal.

What about women? Are women horny all the time like we are? Are women down for sex at any given moment of the day?

Of course they're not. While men are horny, women are only horny when they're horny. In other words, under normal conditions, a typical woman is not walking around thinking about sex all the time. If she's engrossed in a project, and a hot stud walks into the room and asks for sex, not only will she say no, but she'll probably be at least mildly irritated at the request. If she's over age 33 and/or has higher levels of ASD, she may actually be insulted and even angered that he's bothering her with such an "immature," "offensive," or "inappropriate" suggestion.

Moreover, women have been trained by society their entire lives to hide their horniness. Men, at least in most cultures, lack this training. That means that when a man is really horny, everyone around him knows it. He shows it in some form or fashion and usually doesn't attempt to hide it. Whereas when a woman is really horny, you might know, or you may have no idea. Often she'll go out of her way to hide it; something she's had a lot of practice doing her entire adult life. I'm sure you've had the experience of when a women tells you of some past time you had with her, when she said was "really horny," and you had no idea at the time.

Most normal, non-red pill men take all of these things into account and draw the conclusion that women aren't horny at all, or are at least much less horny than men, and that sex isn't something they're interested in. They assume that sex is something they "do for men" just to shut men up, manipulate them into relationships, or to have babies.

More woman-experienced men know this is completely inaccurate. Women are just as horny as men, if not more so, but unlike with men, it's not a constant condition. While men are horny, women get horny. When women get horny, they are just as horny as men.

Some would argue (including me) that when women are horny, they're even hornier than men. I have personally experienced women doing the most insane, crazy shit in order to get sex when they're horny in the moment. I've seen women who can't pull their own clothes off of themselves fast enough to get laid. I've seen women get visibly upset when I can't come over to their homes to fuck them. I've seen women naked, laying in my bed (or on the carpet, or on my couch) literally screaming at me to "hurry up" and "get over here" because they needed me inside them. I've seen women drive an hour across town just to have sex with one of their FB's; note that this was not a man they were dating or even liked; they just needed the sex. Many women have told me stories about how they get so horny at work sometimes, they sneak into the woman's bathroom just to diddle themselves to orgasm in one of the stalls.

And so on.

Notice however, that all of those examples were in the moment of horniness. When not horny, women don't do any of these things. Their minds aren't even remotely in that zone. Compare that to men, who will constantly do stupid, insane things for women because of their oneitis, at any and all times… because men are horny all the damn time.

Some men argue that often, women experience these extreme bouts of horniness because of purely biological factors, such as ovulation, pregnancy, PMS, and certain aspects of menopause. This is true. It's also true that many women can get crazy horny for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with these factors, such as slow sex drive women who are very relaxed and get turned on by a man who knows what he's doing. NRE also creates extreme horniness in women, as does watching a particularly sexual scene in a movie. Even talking about sex, particularly in a very rich, emotional way can make a woman very horny, which is one of the reasons why I recommend doing this on first and second dates, and why guys like Ross Jeffries built an entire seduction system around that concept.

Exceptions to the rules aside, all women under the age of 60 get super horny like this, at least occasionally. (It is true that after age 60, many women start to remove sex from their lives, but even many of these women still get horny; they just don't use sex to satisfy it.)

You're horny all the time. She's not normally horny at all, but when she gets horny, and she will, she's just as horny as you are, if not more so.

That's the difference.

The post Getting Horny – The Difference Between Men and Women appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Accepting Women As They Are

January 7, 2016, 5:00 am

I regularly get emails from guys who tell me things like this:

We had a date set for 6:30pm. 6:30pm. I confirmed it with her twice. It was a very simple place to get to. She said she knew exactly where it was. She showed up 35 minutes late! She said she "had trouble finding it" and gave me a bunch of bullshit about "traffic." WTF? I was so pissed. That's bullshit!

Or

My GF/OLTR/MLTR and I had an argument the other day. We wanted to go out, so I suggested this Italian place. She said it was okay. She actually said, "Yeah, that sounds good." But then when we got there she was all pissed and quiet and giving me this passive aggressive crap. I asked her what was wrong but she wouldn't tell me. She was a bitch all night. Later that evening she said she hated Italian and had wanted to go to a Mexican place. WTF? Why didn't she just tell me that? Why did she WANT to sit there and be mad all night? That's bullshit!

Or

Me and my GF/OLTR/MLTR were going to Chicago to visit some mutual friends. When she was packing I told her TWO TIMES to make sure she didn't pack any big bottles full of liquids in her bag, because then security would pull us out of the line and make us wait, and she would freak out. We get to the airport, go through security, and sure enough, she has this big bottle of Vitamin Water in her bag. When they tell her to open her bag, she gets pissed at them and causes a scene. Fuck! I'm serious BD, I told her TWO TIMES not to do that, and I know she heard me.

I was SO FUCKING PISSED! We almost missed our flight! After it all I asked her why she had that Vitamin Water in her bag after I told her TWO TIMES not to pack big liquid bottles. She said "she forgot." That's bullshit!

I could give you many more examples but I think you get the point.

I never have any of these problems.

Never?

Yes. I said never. I never have any of these anger-inducing moments caused by women in my life.

It's not because the women in my life never make these stupid girl mistakes that all women make. It's because many years ago I accepted women as wonderful, amazing, irrational, chaotic, flawed creatures.

Most men go through life acting like, and subconsciously assuming, that women are man-like robots who always listen to you, never forget anything, never behave irrationally, and never change their minds. These men are regularly pissed off at the woman (or women) in their life whenever these women don't act according to this masculine standard. Which, of course, is all the time. This includes men with women who are very smart, and/or have high IQs, and/or have college degrees, and/or are over the age of 30 or 40.

"She's really smart, so she won't act like that." How many times have I heard men say that? (A lot.) And how many times have they been eventually proven wrong? (About 100%.)

Being sometimes happy and sometimes frustrated is the path of the Alpha Male 1.0. Since my objective in life is to be consistently happy at all times (as much as is realistically possible of course), my entire attitude regarding women is completely different from most men.

This attitude works. I am near-consistently happy with women, pretty much year-round. And that's saying a lot, since I'm always dating several women at a time.

What if I told you that you could be consistently happy with women too? And still spend all the time with women you want? It's very simple. All you do is this:

Constantly and consistently remember and remind yourself that just about all women, even if they're very smart and/or mature,

1. Are often disorganized and forgetful.

2. Are often irrational and don't make sense.

3. Often choose to be sad, unhappy, or upset instead of actually taking action to improve their conditions.

4. Often forget very important details that later screw up their lives (and your life if you're not careful).

5. Sometimes lose their cool, get hysterical, or cry at extremely inappropriate times and places, even when they logically know they shouldn't.

6. Often don't fully process guy-logic statements, when they are clearly stated and they logically understand them.

7. Are biologically hard-wired to change their minds about things, including and especially regarding major life decisions and desires. I discuss this in detail in my book. They will often do this completely without warning or any reason that makes sense to you.

When I spend time with a woman, even if she's very smart, very successful, very educated, or older, I remember all the above. I do more than remember; I assume some or all of the above will happen with her.

Whenever I have to logistically plan something with a woman, be it a simple date or a week-long trip, I work into my plans the overwhelming likelihood that some of the above seven items will occur.

If any of the above happens, I nod knowingly, and it doesn't surprise me, confuse me or frustrate me. She's a girl acting like a girl. I expected this. I anticipate it, ignore it, and move on.

If she really causes me trouble, like she gets hysterical or something, no problem. I snap my fingers, she gets instantly soft nexted, and I go have sex with someone else. Problem solved. She has every right to be bitchy or angry, but I have every right to boot her out of my life when she's acting like this.

Men who suffer personal unhappiness from women's drama are either betas, who never soft next, or Alpha 1.0s, who consider soft nexting a "last resort," meaning they have all kinds of drama with their gal and then they next, which is not only the wrong way to soft next, but way too late.

If I'm with a woman for an extended period and none of the above seven problems occur, I consider that a lucky win but don't plan on my luck holding out forever. She had a good day, or a good week, or a good month, but she's still a girl. Her irrational crap is still coming; just not today.

That's the difference between you and me. I expect women to act like women. You expect women to act like men. If you want to expect women to act like men, that's your choice, but you'll never, ever be as consistently happy with women as I am. It won't be possible for you.

Why Did She Do That???

Another variation of this is the common question I get: "Why do women do that?"

For example, "She asked me what she wanted, I gave it to her, and then she complained. WHY DID SHE DO THAT?"

Here's why she did that: She's irrational. Irrational means there is no reason. When women pull their irrational shit on men, men often want to know WHY. The problem is, there is no why. That's what irrational means. When she behaves retarded or like a 5 year-old, you want some detailed, clear, rational explanation why. Sometimes there is a reason that can be articulated this way depending on the scenario, but the vast majority of the time there is no logical reason, other than "she's irrational," which she is. Being irrational is part of being a girl, just like being horny is part of being a guy. It's just the way it is, and it will never change.

If you expect women in advance to behave irrationally and be disorganized, and don't worry about "why," you're going to be a happy guy. I can tell you this from experience. Just plan on women behaving like…women.

This works both ways too. I tell women all the time that they should expect, in advance, that their husband or boyfriend will cheat on them. Because he will. That's what men do. Even many beta males will cheat, eventually.

Just like men who are constantly pissed that women act irrationally, women are constantly pissed because men cheat. Just like those men, these women aren't accepting men to act like…men.

What a happier world it would be if we just accepted each other for both the positives and negatives of our respective genders.

Oh well.

The post Accepting Women As They Are appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

---

Dominant Bitchy Women Are Good to Date? Uh…No

May 19, 2016, 5:00 am

Get ready to puke up your lunch. We've got a Dominant writing a cute little article about how great it is to date a woman like her. She's going to teach us the important selling points of dating an Alpha Bitch.

Some men like their women submissive, sweet, feminine, and nurturing – and hey, there's nothing wrong with that. But that woman is certainly not an Alpha Female.

Now, for my Alpha Females out there, you badass bitches know who you are, it takes a very particular man to be able to handle you. Yes, you might as well admit it now: you are a handful.

This is the sort of black-and-white thinking embraced by Americans in particular (because of our insane two party political system).

Look at what the implication is. As a man, you have only two options: a submissive wimp woman or a high drama badass bitch.

How about a woman with a high self-esteem and very low drama?

Or how about a more submissive woman who is also very smart and successful in her career?

Or a truly Independent woman who is very easy to be with because she doesn't care about your opinions of her opinions?

But, no. According to this gal, we have only two radical options. This is a common tactic: strawman one other option than the one you are proposing, then define it as something horrible and extreme.

1. She will challenge you.

Not only will she challenge you, but she probably won't forfeit too easily; she will be persistent and insistent. She will debate with you over anything from de Blasio's new policy, to the actual color of a tennis ball (green? or yellow?), and she expects to win.

Woman translation to English: I'm a high drama bitch. I'm loud and argumentative.

Some advice: challenge her back.

Woman translation to English: As a woman, I love drama. GIVE IT TO ME! Later, I'll lie to my girlfriends about how much I "hate drama," but I'll be full of shit. I drink that shit up!

2. She don't need a man to make it happen.

That's right! I don't need a man. I just need child support, alimony, food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing, goverment healthcare, affirmative action laws, sugar daddy arrangements, men to pay for dates, and live-in boyfriend or husband to pay most of my bills.

All of these things are mostly paid for by men, but I don't need a man!

If you're the kind of guy who loves to feel needed all the time, this gal just isn't for you. She is fiercely independent and prides herself on being self-reliant and self-sufficient: Miss Outta My Way.

I've already explained what women mean when they use the word "independent." Read it right here, and be sure to read the comments made by women there as well.

The great thing about being with an Alpha is that you won't feel tied down

Yes, you will, because she's a Dominant who will run your life.

 because she doesn't need you, she wants you.

…to help pay her bills.

3. She will be straight-up with you.

If your Alpha has a problem, you will most likely know about it.

This is fine. If a woman has a legitimate problem and she's an MLTR or OLTR, I would like to hear about it so that it doesn't fester and become a drama explosion later.

If all she said was this and then moved on, I would have no problem with it and agree 100%. But she does go on, to demonstrate exactly the one thing I dislike most about women:

You can't expect her to be too gentle with her words, so hopefully you'll understand that she isn't trying to be mean – this is just the way she is.

I have had women complain to me about the technique of soft nexting. These women say things like, "Oh, so a woman isn't allowed to bring any problems in the relationship to your attention? Nice, BD!" or "You're going to temporarily kick a woman out of your life just for expressing her emotions?!?"

No.

As I've explained many times before, any woman in a relationship with me is more than welcome to bring a problem to me, provided she's being a calm, rational adult using a normal tone of voice and not throwing around insults (including veiled ones). I've never had a problem with that and never will. Moreover, since my goal is always long-term relationships, I want her to want her to bring such a problem to my attention so we can resolve it together.

The challenge comes when a woman comes to me with a problem while, as this woman says it, "not being too gentle with her words." If a woman comes to me with a problem while being a hysterical, insulting bitch, then that's unacceptable Sweetheart, and you're goddamn right you're going to get soft nexted (if not hard nexted). And you fuckin' deserve it.

At no point in the last ten years or so have I ever, ever raised my voice to a woman in anger or insulted her personally, including when I'm bringing a problem in the relationship to her attention. I expect the same consideration.

Calming down and thinking before you speak is not that difficult. If you can't do that, get the fuck away from me and come back when you've taken a few anger management classes and have learned to behave like the adult you want to be treated as. Justify your childish behavior all you like; I'll be busy having sex with some younger and/or hotter women until you shape up.

4. She's a do-er, not a talk-er.

Alpha's take action, so if she says she's gonna do something – you bet your ass, she's gonna do it. She probably expects the same in return: if you say you're gonna do something, you sure as hell better follow through. And if ya don't, she will…so don't miss the boat, Mister. Hop on!

That's good. I always do what I promise. This is why I'm extremely careful about what I promise, both in my personal life and in my business life. I learned a very long time ago that long-term happiness comes to the man who doesn't promise very much.

However, I view that as common decency, not as something you should be bragging about. Being a person of your word should apply equally to everyone, of both sexes, not just an Alpha Bitch.

5. She doesn't wear her Alpha on her sleeve.

Then what is this entire fucking article?

Chocolates? Flowers? One of those Hallmark cards that have a cute pun about how much you love her? Yeah, these things will probably make her vom a little in her mouth before it makes her heart melt.

I won't be getting you that crap anyway, so no problem.

Not that she's a total cynic, but she's used to the doting – the lovey dovey crap that every girl wants – and in order to get her attention, you'll need to come up with something a little more original.

As long as it doesn't cost me any money, sure.

Wait, what? You don't like that, Sweetie?

But I thought you "don't need a man?"

6. She's not easy.

If you think loving an Alpha Female is easy, you're wrong.

Sounds GREAT. A difficult woman? Yay! Sign me up!

She's difficult, competitive, and probably complicated.

OMG this sounds wonderful! The perfect woman to be with! I'm cumming in my pants!

She gets off from being free, being in power, and will step on any man who gets in her way. She is, in fact, ab. So. Lute. Ly. Impossible.

Wow! She wants to be in power? She steps on men? She's impossible?

Woman. Of. My. Dreams.

You should put that shit on your online dating profile, Kitten. You will be mobbed by the highest-quality men you've ever seen. Seriously, do it.

7. But she's definitely worth it.

Oh yeah!

Her my-way-or-the-highway attitude and complete self-competence will, at times, make you feel small.

I'm falling in love! I've always wanted a woman to make me feel small! Doesn't that sound great, guys?

Instead, let it empower you.

Yes! Let a dominant, high drama bitch from hell empower you, guys!

Why the hell would you want a nice girl? Fuck no! Give me one of these Alpha Bitches! I'm still trying to talk down my raging boner!

Let it strengthen your weaknesses, and let it feed your drive to success. She will help you learn about yourself; she will push you; she will change you; she will impact you. Overall, she will make you a better man.

Yes! Yes! A woman who is difficult, competitive, loves drama, who is yelling at me, complaining often and stepping on me will make me a better man! I'll look better, feel better about myself, be a happier man, and make more money in my career!

This chick has totally turned me around! What the fuck have I been doing all these years dating happy, low-drama women? What a fool I've been! I need one of these Alpha Bitches to step on me and make me feel small!

Future dream woman, here I come!

The post Dominant Bitchy Women Are Good to Date? Uh…No appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Dating Trends I've Noticed in the Last 10 Years

May 15, 2017, 5:00 am

A few months ago, I celebrated my ten year anniversary as an unmarried Alpha Male 2.0. It has also been about eight years since I professionally started this Blackdragon endeavor as a dating and relationship advisor to men.

Ten years is a long time… ten years of dates, women, nonmonogamous relationships, and communicating with literally thousands of men all over the world on these topics (as well as with women too). Today, I will go through some of the big changes and trends I've noticed in the dating and relationship world, as I compare things from 2007-2010 to today, 2017.

Some of these trends will be obvious to the typical person, though many will not be. I have no idea if these trends are truly global, or throughout the West, or if they will continue into the future (though I can make some educated guesses). I'm just noting the changes I've seen with men and women based on my own experiences and the men and women I've talked to over the last ten years or so.

Here we go…

More Older Men, Younger Women Relationships

This one is the result of other trends I'll cover in a minute. I am seeing way more older men, younger women relationships everywhere I look. Back in 2007, these were around, but reasonably rare. They're still rare as compared to greater society, but they are much more common today than I ever thought they would be.

This is very interesting, since as the culture moves further to the political left, more and more Western countries and districts are actually raising the age of consent, because, according to all these left-wing over-33 women, 17 year-old women having voluntary sex with 25 year-old men (or older) is clearly evil and wrong  and Must Be Stopped.

It will be very interesting to watch these two conflicting sources do battle over the next few decades, Type 2 VYW and the men who love them vs. angry, left-wing, older women who have the backing of both government and the growing cultural zeitgeist.

Older Guys Stupidly Getting Serious With Women Who Are Way Too Young

Likely a result of the above trend, in the last few years I've seen a massive upswing in the number of older men (men in their 30's to 50's) getting into very serious relationships (with long-term expectations) with women who are as young as 18 to 22. Usually these relationships are monogamous. Many times they move in together.

As I talked about here, this is utterly stupid. If you want to have sex with younger women, by all means go for it. But, Jesus you idiots, getting into a serious relationship with a woman that young, with long-term expectations, particularly the expectations of any kind of monogamy or exclusivity, is one of the dumbest things older men do.

Look pal, that 20 year-old girlfriend you just moved in with is a teenager. It doesn't matter if she's over 19. If she's about age 22 or under, she's a teenager. Do you seriously expect a fucking teenager to do what she promises over the long haul? Do you seriously expect her to not fuck other guys? Do you seriously expect her to not just bail on you whenever she gets bored?

Hell, it's hard enough for women in their 30's and 40's to not do these things! By getting into this kind of relationship with a god damn teenager, you're asking, nay, BEGGING for a huge pile of future problems.

I keep seeing older guys do this, and it's not good. If you want to have fun with younger women, keep them as FB's. If you want something more serious or long-term, keep it to women a little older, ideally age 25 and above.

Women Being Much More Open to Open Relationships and/or Polyamory

Now this is a good trend, and one I predicted a long time ago, that I'm happy turned out to be accurate. Way back in 2007 and 2008 when I was first getting started with this stuff, if you even hinted at a nonmonogamous relationship with a woman, she would be horrified, like you just slapped her in the face. This was even true of younger women in their 20's. Creating and navigating FB's, MLTR's and OLTR's was somewhat difficult and you had to be extremely careful.

Today? Not a problem. Some women still get horrified of course, but many of them react with a shrug. This is because at least some of their friends or family have tried it, or they've at least heard about it. Don't get me wrong; nonmonogamy is still out of the comfort zone of the vast majority of people out there, but the knee-jerk revulsion that existed ten years ago is now much less common. Women are much more open to this now. Thank goodness.

As monogamy becomes increasingly impossible, expect this trend to strengthen and continue.

Online Dating Is Now Mainstream

An obvious one, but an interesting one. Back in 2008 when I first started talking about online dating on PUA forums, "online game" was a very new and very controversial concept. Night game was king, and night game PUA gurus were enraged that people were even talking about the internet as an option to get laid. Online dating was "for pussies" and "didn't work" and "wasn't real game" and "didn't count." Sex only "counted" if you cold approached a woman in real life. If you fucked 40 women from online dating sites, that didn't count and no one should listen to you, because you had no game. (Yes, they really said this!) And you were probably lying, since only "hot guys" or guys who spent piles of money on women could get laid with online game. (Yes, they really said this!)

Oh, how things have changed.

In reality, things were the exact opposite. Online dating back in the mid to late 2000's was a shooting gallery of easy sex. It's harder now (though still workable if you do the right things), but back then, response rates were sky-high, even on "harder" dating sites like Match.com. MySpace later came online and made things even easier. Because it was new, it was easy.

As with all new dating technologies, eventually online dating went through the five phases. Today, online dating isn't as easy as it was ten years ago, but if you are patient and do everything correctly, you can still get laid with a constant stream of new women.

Men Are Much More Angry

I don't really need to talk about this since I've already discussed this topic in great detail in posts like these:

My Response to MGTOWs

The Childification of Men

Trump Wins…And Nothing Significant Will Change

Marrying A Non-Western Woman Won't Work

I Officially Disavow and Repudiate Rapey PUA

An Open Invitation To The Alt-Right and Manosphere To Tell Me Where I'm Wrong

Why Young Men Don't Want to Man Up

Men all over the Western world are far angrier about women, dating, relationships, and marriage than they ever were ten years ago. Sadly, I think this trend will increase. Instead of adjusting their approach to women and long-term relationships to reflect new norms, men are instead choosing to scream their heads off in hysterical anger, trying to time warp the entire world back to the 1950's (the alt-right) or sit on their fat asses and rely on government to fix all of their problems (progressives). Both of these are losing propositions in the long-term.

Man, good thing I walk a different path.

Men have now broken themselves out into the six categories I described here. Only one is conducive to long-term happiness; the rest are not.

Sugar Daddy Game Is Gaining Momentum

I wrote about the sugar daddy phenomenon here (though it's a little dated now) and have an entire updated how-to chapter on sugar daddy game in this book. Because of worsening economic conditions, higher inflation, the rising cost of useless, rip-off college degrees, the high number of single mothers, and the increasing number of older men with money getting divorced or cheating on their wives (since monogamy doesn't work), there's been a huge upswing in sugar daddy relationships, to the point now where it's almost considered not quite mainstream, but more like "unusual but common."

Married guys are recommending sugar daddy game to their other married buddies. Young hot college students are recommending it to their friends. It's becoming normal.

I predict that as the West continues to decline, sugar daddy game someday will be considered normal. How it's specifically done will change of course, but the concept will grow.

More Men Are Removing Themselves From The Dating Pool, Eliminating Competition for the Rest of Us

Back in 2007, hell, back when I was a young man in the 80's and 90's, competition for women was fierce. You had to compete not only against the good-looking guys and naturals, but also against normal, every day betas, who actually could "get the girl" if they tried hard enough.

Today, many men (incels, angry MGTOW's, losers, uber-betas, porn addicts, herbivore men, older virgins, etc) have removed themselves from even trying to get laid, relying instead on porn and sexy video games.

Society thinks this is terrible. (Japan's government is in panic mode.) I think it's great. Though betas raise the bar to entry in many respects, the actual number of men you have to compete against for any one woman has noticeably dropped in the last several years. This trend will continue. It's bad for society, but the Western world committed suicide a very long time ago. In terms of your dating life, less men is a good thing for you.

Night Game Has Diminished

As I already said above, night game (picking up girls at clubs and bars) was a HUGE thing back in 2007 and prior. Pickup pretty much was night game. There were some daygame guys but they were minor players in the pickup culture. Online game wasn't yet a thing, and social circle game was barely talked about.

Over time, fewer women went to clubs (usually getting their validation from online sources like Instagram and Tinder instead) but more men kept going. Night game guys all over the PUA community and the manosphere started complaining that going to bars/clubs was a sausage fest, and that was several years ago.

Today, most of those night game guys of old have now (temporarily) removed themselves from the dating pool (as I just said above) by surrendering to monogamy or traditional marriage. Daygame is really huge, online dating is huge, and there's more of a focus on social circle game than ever before. Night game is still definitely a thing (I notice Owen and the RSD guys are still at it) but it's almost a 180 degree change from ten years ago.

Men and Women Still Attempt Monogamy Just As Much, Even Though It Works Even Less Than Before

This isn't so much a trend as a continuation. I would have expected fewer people to try monogamy as divorce rates continue to increase, cheating rates continue to increase, and monogamy satisfaction continues to decrease. Yet, that hasn't happened. True, people are waiting longer to get married, but people of all ages and generations are still getting into monogamous relationships in vast numbers, even though it almost always ends up in divorce, cheating, breakups, and drama. People are still clinging to monogamy with dear life and won't give it up just yet.

I honestly have no idea when the mainstream will finally get the balls to admit that this system isn't working anymore. It's very likely we have a few more decades of pain, suffering, divorces, cheating, anger, hurt, and screwed up children before normal people start openly embracing long-term relationship models that don't include absolute sexual monogamy at all times.

It's going to be very interesting to watch. Here's to the next ten years!

The post Dating Trends I've Noticed in the Last 10 Years appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Female Loyalty

February 26, 2018, 5:00 am

One of the biggest frustrations that men in the modern era have with women is the real or perceived lack of loyalty women seem to have for the men they date or are married to. Blogs and forums all over the internet are full of angry men who are furious that women aren't loyal. Women dump men. Women don't respect men. Women cheat on men. Women will be in a long-term serious relationship with you and just suddenly end it, and won't even seem bothered by it. Women get new boyfriends almost instantly after they dump you. Women reveal personal things about you to their friends and family. And on, and on.

"Why can't women be loyal?!?!" these men scream.

Are they right? Are women truly not loyal?

As always, I look at the facts to form my opinions and decisions rather than my wants, feelings or Societal Programming. So what do the facts say?

Well, in this case, the angry men seem to be correct. The stats are quite clear. As I've discussed and analyzed numerous times, 70-80% of all divorces are initiated by the female, and approximately three-fourths of all girlfriend/boyfriend relationships are ended by the female. On top of that, women also cheat pretty much as much as men do in long-term relationships and marriages. In shorter-term relationships, men tend to cheat more, but that's only because women tend to dump men and then fuck someone else rather than cheat.

As to the question of how loyal women are in relationships, that's pretty much clear. Women indeed are not "loyal" in terms of staying with a man they're with.

Women's usual argument against this is, "Well, yeah, we dump/divorce guys more, but that's because guys are assholes! If men weren't such assholes, we wouldn't divorce them!!!"

This argument is inherently sexist, and I'll explain why. The implied argument is that 70-80% of all divorces (the ones initiated by women) are strictly because the husbands are horrible assholes and the wives are innocent victims. That then means women are only responsible for 20-30% of divorces, thus that women are essentially better at being married, nicer during marriages, and that women are better wives than men are husbands.

Anyone who has been reading my material for any length of time knows that is obviously bullshit. As I've said many times, and as the data, stats, and science repeatedly show, most women love getting married but women despise being married. Once married and past the three-year mark, women stop having sex, start gaining weight, start getting more bitchy and demanding, and exhibit all sorts of problems in the relationship.

It's true that men also screw up marriages and relationships. No question about that. For years I have stated here on this very blog that most problems relationships encounter within the first year are overwhelmingly men's fault, so I'm being objective about this. I've also stated at most problems caused in live-in relationships / marriages past the three year-mark tend to be caused by women.

Another argument used by women is that women divorce/leave men because men cheat. I understand this argument and I agree that men who promise monogamy long-term monogamy to a woman (which is astoundingly stupid, but that's another topic) should do what they promise and not cheat on a woman behind her back.

But wait a minute. If women leaving men is usually the man's fault, why isn't a man cheating on a woman usually the woman's fault? I'm being serious here. Women who use this logic need to apply it both ways. If a man's wife stops having regular sex with him and gains 50 pounds, and he cheats on her, does the wife bear any responsibility for this? If your answer is no, then you can't turn around and say that all these divorces women initiate are men's fault. If your answer is yes (and the answer is yes) then you have to admit that many of these divorce women initiate are because of the woman, at least in part.

That's the problem with this "men cheat all the time!" complaint. It never includes any context. Every time I see some wife of a politician or celebrity on TV crying about how horrible it is her husband cheated on her, my first question is always the same: "How many times in the last 6 months have you had sex with him? Or do you just give him the usual set of wife excuses every time he tried to have sex with you?" Again, men shouldn't cheat because cheating is lying, but it's a perfectly relevant question.

Lastly, women complain that men can't complain about women being loyal if men cheat all the time. I actually agree with this (notwithstanding the aspect of female fault I just explained). However, women don't understand that in a man's world, if a man is a good husband who treats his wife well, takes care of his family, and everyone once in a while bangs a Vegas hooker but always returns to his wife and family, that is considered "loyal." If the wife finds out about it and instantly divorces the man, destroys the family, takes his kids, and quickly hooks up with a new boyfriend, that is considered "disloyal," at least in terms of how most men view this.

I'm against the entire concept of monogamy so I disagree with all of this, both the male and female view.  If coupled or married people just stopped acting like fucking children or Puritans from the 17th Century, and stopped promising, demanding, and expecting absolute sexual monogamy at all times, none of this stuff would be a problem in the first place. I'm just clarifying how societally programmed men and women tend to view these things.

What To Do About It

So yes, in terms of male definitions of the word, women are not loyal. That's the problem. Now let's talk about solutions.

All of my writing on all topics revolves around the concept of objective reality. That the world is how it really is, regardless of your personal feelings, regardless of what you want, regardless of how you think things should be, and regardless of how you have been told they are. That's the entire point of one of the most important articles I've ever written in my life right here. It's also the baseline for all of my advice regarding women, business, finances, and overall lifestyle.

Long-term happiness comes from the following realizations:

• The world is the way it is.

• The world is not going to change because you want it to.

• The world is not going to change because you try to change it. This is called external solutions, and they virtually never work, as I explained here.

• If you proceed in your life based on how you think the world should be rather than how the world is, you'll encounter massive problems in your future. (This is why men do things like get traditionally married, or vote for politicians with actual expectations they will change things, or expect women to be loyal.)

Fortunately, you have two more options beyond acting on how you think the world should be.

One option is to withdraw from the entire system, and refuse to have sex with women or get into any serious relationships with women at all. This is the path of the MGTOW. Unfortunately, as I've explained on this blog several times before, while that is a path to avoid lots of problems, it's not a path to long-term happiness. The reality (there's that word again, reality) is that men like women, like sex with women, and most men like the company of one special woman, particularly as they get older. The man who eschews women completely (or relationships with women) is probably better off than the delusional man who constantly gets into high-drama breakups and divorces with women, but he still won't be long-term happy (unless he is a rare exception to the rule, and those rare exceptions would be fine to take the MGTOW route, but again, these men are the rare exceptions).

That leaves us with the final option, the only one actually conducive to long-term masculine happiness. It's not an easy option, and it's not for everyone, but it will make you happy once you master it. It is this: Take action to get what you want, but in full acknowledgement of how the world actually is, even if you disagree with how the world is.

This means you love women, date women, have sex with women, get into relationships with women, even very serious ones, while assuming that women are not loyal and that she could leave you at any time.

The weak beta male or the right-wing Alpha Male 1.0 takes action on what he wants (relationships with women) but does so not acknowledging how women actually are, and instead assuming they'll act the way he's been told women act (beta males) or assuming they will act how women should act (Alpha Male 1.0's). He gets into serious monogamous relationships or traditional marriages, then she leaves because she's not loyal, and he's shocked, and gets sad and depressed (betas) or furious as fuck (Alpha Male 1.0's).

The MGTOW doesn't take action on what he wants (relationships with women) and instead focuses on porn and masturbating. At best, he plays with hookers and/or short-term FB's. He never has a long-term connection with women (or a woman) that he secretly desires (unless he's an odd exception), particularly as he gets older. Long-term, he's no more happy than the typical guy in terms of his woman life.

The Alpha Male 2.0 takes action on what he wants (relationships with women), but unlike the typical guy, he objectively looks at the world, sees that, for better or worse, he lives in a society where women are not loyal to men, nor have no incentive to be because of the welfare state and a permissive society, and thus tend to dump guys even when in very serious relationships.

He doesn't like this, but he wants to be happy, and he knows sitting around and bitching about it won't make him happy. So instead of screaming and ranting about how horrible today's women are, and how the entire world should rewind back to the 1950's (something he knows will literally never happen regardless of who he and his friends vote for), he focuses on internal solutions instead.

Thus, he adopts relationship models (FB, MLTR, OLTR) that protect him against women's lack of loyalty that may cause problems for him down the road. He's never monogamous, always has sex with (or perhaps even dates) multiple women at once. He makes sure he has strong long-term goals, that have nothing to do with women, that he finds exciting. He finds great meaning in his life, with or without women. He never expects women to stick around; he's always prepared for any woman in his life, even when in a very serious relationship, to suddenly leave him, even for reasons he thinks are stupid or petty.

If/when he settles down in his older years, he uses the OLTR marriage model (or variation of it), where he's still allowed to have sex with women on the side and 100% of his finances are completely separate from her and legally protected. If there's a break-up/divorce, he's not exactly happy about it, but he nods knowingly, is not surprised, and his sex life and financial life continue undamaged.

He sympathizes with his right-wing Alpha 1.0 brothers; yeah, women should be loyal. But they aren't, and sitting around complaining about it accomplishes nothing, other than making you even more angry.

He also knows that going on hundreds of first dates and having scores of short-term relationships to try to screen for a mythical Unicorn Woman isn't going to work and will likely just waste his time.

He also knows that traveling to some distant country to find her isn't going to work either because even if he finds such a "loyal" woman, as soon as he brings her back to the Western world, she'll start acting like all other Western women act.

These things are just right-wing Guy-Disney fantasies, and they don't acknowledge how the world actually is.

He loves women while A) not making women the be-all and end-all of his life and B) accepting women for how they are, the good and the bad. He enjoys the good while building in systems in his life to protect him from the bad.

As a result, he finds a higher degree of long-term happiness than any other type of man. While other men are suffering and complaining that women aren't loyal (which is true, they aren't), he's having such a great time he doesn't even notice.

Which path will you choose? As always, it's up to you.

The post Female Loyalty appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

Older Women vs. Younger Women – Chemistry vs. Attraction

September 21, 2015, 5:00 am

Many years ago when I was dating a lot more women over the age of 33, I heard them often use a particular word during the first few dates. This word: chemistry. Many women at this age range used this word a lot. They spoke of it as if it was something very important and very hard to find. It was a big deal to them.

Interestingly, I never heard any women under the age of 33 using this word. Actually, I can tell you for a fact that I have never heard a woman under the age of 33 using this word in a dating context in my entire life. Yet women over 33 use this word all the time when dating.

I found this very interesting and started to examine this further.

Women over the age of 33 are correct; "chemistry" is quite rare. It's quite possible for a woman over the age of 33 to go on ten first dates and not have "chemistry" with any of those men, forcing her to continue her search. However, if a woman under the age of 33 goes on ten first dates, she's very likely to find at least one guy she likes a great deal, regardless of if she finds chemistry or not.

Why is this?

This is because, generally speaking, women over the age of 33 are looking for chemistry, while women under the age of 33 are looking for attraction. These are two very different things.

Attraction

Attraction is achieved when a woman is A) turned on by you at least to some degree and B) feels at least somewhat safe with you.

Whether or not she feels safe with you is based solely on your behavior during dates. This is tied to being horny vs. being sexual, something I cover in detail in my ebooks. Horny is threatening and a turn-off. Sexual is attractive and safe.

Whether or not she feels attracted to you is a result of her embedded number and how well you rank against that number based on your appearance and behavior. I explain that in this article here.

Attraction isn't very complicated. If she likes you and feels at least somewhat safe, you're in. She'll have sex with you relatively quickly. Even if you screw a few things up, she'll still probably have sex with you. Of course you can completely screw things up and lose her before you have sex, but that usually means you didn't make her feel safe; she was probably still attracted to you but she couldn't go there because she felt threatened in some way.

Chemistry

Chemistry sounds like it's the same as attraction, but it's a completely different thing. It's much more complicated and delicate.

Attraction is the combination of being turned on and feeling safe.

Chemistry is the combination of attraction and compliance to a predetermined checklist.

Attraction is one key component of chemistry. She has to be attracted to you or there's no chemistry. However, once she's attracted to you, she now needs another layer of complexity that most younger women don't care about. You now need to comply with a checklist of qualities she's preselected for the ideal boyfriend or husband. Since most women over age 33 in the dating pool are provider hunters, this extra aspect is important to them.

You're on a first date with a 37 year-old woman looking for chemistry. You both start talking, and you look good to her. You're able to carry on a conversation without looking like a dork, and you're not too needy. Now she's attracted. Well done, but she's not looking for attraction. She's looking for chemistry.

Half an hour into the conversation you're both talking about your pasts, and you mention you voted for George W. Bush. She's a left-winger, so immediately you've violated one of the items on her internal checklist ("He can't be a conservative."). You also mention several times that you really enjoy going fishing. She visualizes how gross fish are and how much they stink. Unwittingly, you've violated another item on her list ("He needs to be a clean-cut guy.").

You don't have to actually say something to violate a chemistry-seeker's checklist. It's very easy to destroy chemistry nonverbally. Maybe you have a habit of scratching the back of your hand, or of brushing hair away from your forehead. Maybe the tone of voice you use with the waitstaff isn't what she would visualize the ideal future boyfriend/husband would use. So even if you carefully control everything you say during a first date (which you should) you can still easily violate a woman's checklist and make chemistry impossible.

After the date, you text her and she doesn't respond. You never hear from her again. When her girlfriend asks about the date, she casually remarks that you were a cute and cool guy but there "wasn't any chemistry."

It's not that she wasn't attracted to you. She was! You simply violated a few items on her list, eliminating the feminine concept of "chemistry."

Two weeks later you go out on first date with a 26 year old woman. During this date, you look good and carry yourself well. She's attracted. You also make the same mistakes again by mentioning you voted for George W. Bush and love to go fishing a lot. This 26 year-old, just like the 37 year-old, is also a big left-winger and hates men who fish. When you mention Bush and fishing, she frowns, perhaps makes a negative comment, but it's no big deal. She's still attracted, so it's okay. She's not looking for chemistry. She's looking for attraction.

A few hours later she has sex with you, and it's amazing for both of you. Six months later, you're both still dating, really care for one another, and are both having a great time. During all this, that 37 year-old woman is still going out on first dates, looking for chemistry, not finding it, getting exasperated, and bitching about "where have all the good men gone?"

While the 26 year-old, seeking attraction, is having orgasms with you and having a great time. The 37 year-old, seeking chemistry, goes home to her vibrator.

Which one is happier?

Which one has a more positive view of dating?

Which one has a more positive view of men?

If you've been on lots of first dates with women over age 33 and under age 33 like I have, you already know the answer.

Your Influence Over Attraction vs. Chemistry

Attraction is directly within your control. You have vast control over your physical appearance, your fashion, and how you behave on a first and second date. Of course you can't have sex with any woman you want; that's a PUA myth. However, by controlling these three variables, you can create attraction with a much higher percentage of women you meet. I'm living proof of this. Years ago I had lots of trouble creating attraction because all three of those variables were not optimal. Today they are (within reasonable constraints), so creating attraction on a first or second date for me is very easy. My results reflect this, as will yours.

Chemistry isn't really within your realm of control at all. Since attraction is 50% of chemistry, you can improve your odds of chemistry a little by ensuring attraction more often. The problem is you don't know the exact checklist of that woman sitting next to you at the bar or standing next to you at the bookstore. The only way to ensure you create chemistry with a new woman (once you have attraction) is to extract a copy of her checklist from her brain, memorize it, and then make sure not to say or do anything that violates anything on that list.

Worse, you may find items on that list unacceptable to you. I don't like to wait for sex past the second date, and refuse to wait past the third. So I've destroyed chemistry with many over-33 women who were very attracted to me simply because I tried to have sex with them on the second or even third date. Since one of the items on their checklist was "He's a gentleman and doesn't try to have sex with me before we've been dating for a few weeks," I violated chemistry (on purpose in this case) and I was out.

The point is, even if I was aware those women had that rule, I would have violated that rule anyway. I'm not waiting for five or six dinner dates before I have sex with someone. Are you fucking kidding me? What if she decides to dump me on dinner date number four? (Which, by the way, women do to guys all the time, and did to me back when I was stupid enough to go along with this system.)

Again, the level of attraction these women feel for you is completely irrelevant, and this is key point many Alphas misunderstand when I discuss the problems with getting to sex quickly with women over the age of 33. I've relayed real-life stories before about over-33, chemistry-seeking women I was on dates with who were so turned on by me that even though they resisted sex when I tried, they instead ran home, masturbated while thinking about me, and texted me and told me all about it. I had attraction nailed, but I didn't achieve chemistry. So I never had sex with these women.

This is one of the many reasons I stopped cold-approaching (online or in real life) any women over the age of 33 several years ago, and never regretted that decision. Every first date with new woman I have these days is with a woman seeking attraction, not chemistry. Attraction is largely within my control, and I have that nailed, so my results on any given under-33 dating blitz are always good.

I still have sex with women over 33 all the time; I love older women, but these are women I already know somehow. They're not strangers I met at the grocery store or on a dating site. If you already know them, the need for chemistry is short-circuited, so it's not nearly as much of a problem. However, if I'm looking to schedule first dates with strangers, I never go above age 33 no matter how attractive they are or how eager they seem. The vast majority of those women are looking for chemistry, not attraction, therefore going out on a first date with a woman like this is going to be a waste of both my time and my money.

Even worse, as an Alpha Male 2.0, I'm almost guaranteed to violate several items on her checklist no matter how careful I am. Of course I could lie, but I refuse to lie to women in order to get laid or to establish a relationship. Lying = drama, and I don't do drama, so I don't lie. I'd rather next Ms. Inflexible and move on to the next woman on the list.

Beta males (and the Alpha 1.0s who are good actors) have better odds…or rather, less bad odds at violating these internal feminine rules.

So next time a woman starts talking about "chemistry," be aware that she's talking about something you have almost no control over, and it might be time to cut your losses and get out of there.

The post Older Women vs. Younger Women – Chemistry vs. Attraction appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

The 8 Types of Female Sex Drive

January 16, 2017, 5:00 am

A few weeks ago, I talked about the types of male sex drive. Today, I'll discuss the types of female sex drive. When I say "sex drive," I mean the desire to actually have physical intercourse with another human being. In context of this article, sex drive means a woman's desire to actually put a real man's penis inside her. I am not talking about a general feeling or horniness or arousal, which in my opinion is very different than actual sex drive. Please refer to the linked article above for more detail on exactly what I mean when I say "sex drive."

Women are trained by society to think of sex differently than men. Women also have radically different sexual and reproductive biology than men. Therefore, men and women are different such to the point where you can't just label all of them as having low, medium, or high sex drive.

Attention vs. Sexual Desire

As I have discussed many times over the years, especially in my book, a man's primary craving from women is sex, while a woman's primary craving from men is attention. I'm not saying men don't want attention; of course they do. I'm also not saying women don't want sex; of course they do. I'm saying that when you're on a first or second date with a woman, your primary, underlying biological motivation is to have sex with her, at least usually (yes, yes, there are unusual exceptions to every rule). Her primary, underlying, biological motivation is not to have sex with you, but to capture and maintain your attention, for as long as she possibly can.

Yes, she probably also wants to have sex with you if she's attracted to you. Yes, she may also want money and/or support from you, particularly if she's a gold-digger, sugar baby or provider hunter. Yet that's still not her primary, underlying, biological need. Her primary need is your attention. This is why she calls or texts you all the time, and why she friend zones many guys, and why soft nexting is so effective (it's the removal of attention). It explains so many female behaviors once you understand that your attention is the thing she craves from you the most.

Therefore, it's important to understand that even high sex drive women have a strong need for attention from their male partners, potential partners, fuck buddies, orbiters, and friend zone guys that most men won't feel for the women in their lives. Her need for your attention is likely much stronger than your need for her attention, and often men misinterpret this need for attention as attraction or sexual desire. It is usually neither, since remember, women have this same need for attention from their friend zone guys who they aren't attracted to at all, and from other women as well.

Women Are Cyclical

Very unlike men, women's desire for sex is highly cyclical based on where she currently is in her life. If she's young and carefree, she may have a much higher sex drive. If she then gets married and starts having babies, her sex drive may drop to near zero, perhaps for several years, while the babies are small. She's just not in that frame of mind right now. If she gets divorced a few years later, and the divorce was friendly and amicable, she may be super horny again (even for the guy she divorced!). If she gets divorced and the divorce was really horrible, she may go through a "I hate men" phase and not want to have sex at all for several years.

Remember, this is all the same woman, just at different times in her life. As a man, none of this cyclical stuff applies your sex drive at all (unless you're an exception to the rule). If you're a high sex drive guy (for example), you're horny all the time regardless of if you're happy, depressed, excited, sad, single, married, have small kids, have no kids, or whatever. As I always say, men are static (largely unchanging), women are dynamic (always changing).

Regardless, every woman has a sex drive "baseline" of how much she desires sex when everything in her life is more or less normal, and these cycles move up or down from that baseline. For example, a woman with a high sex drive baseline isn't going to go without sex for a year even if she's a man-hating feminist and just went through a dreadful divorce. Similarly, a woman with a very low sex drive baseline isn't going to have very much sex even at her most horny times; just a little more than she usually does.

Feminine Biological Factors

Another key factor in a woman's sex drive is her ovulation cycle. As most of you already know, many women are noticeably hornier during certain times of the month, particularly when she's ovulating and/or right before or right after she menstruates. Much of this up-and-down horniness can, and often is, lessened or even eliminated if she's on chemical-based birth control.

Sex drive, as it relates to ovulation, menstruation, birth control, drug use, menopause, and other purely biological factors are beyond the scope of this article, and I will not be discussing these topics today. (I have an entire section in my book regarding this topic.) The categories of sex drive I'm about to describe are still generally accurate to most women, regardless of these factors. Just be aware of the following generalities:

– Most premenopausal women are a little more horny around when they ovulate. Ovulation is usually around day 14 if day one is her first day of her period, though every woman is different and there are many exceptions to this.

– Many premenopausal women are a little more horny right before, during, or right after their periods, depending on the woman.

– Many women going through menopause or pre-menopause experience weird and unpredictable bouts of extreme horniness. Bitches be crazy. (It's great.)

– Women on consistent chemical birth control (such as birth control pills, depo shots, or NUVA ring, but not things like copper IUDs) tend to be horny much less often than women not on birth control at all. However, that does not mean that if a woman isn't on birth control she'll automatically be "more horny." The world is full of low sex drive women who are not on birth control.

– Women with low testosterone or low or high estrogen tend to be less horny than women with healthy female levels of these things. As a matter of fact, if you are in a serious relationship (high end MLTR or OLTR) with a woman who almost never seems horny, a blood test is probably in order. I've known a decent amount of women with crappy levels of testosterone/estrogen; it seems to be common problem today.

– Consistent drug use can affect women's sex drive, usually negatively (and men's too).

With that all in mind, here are the eight types of women when it comes to sex drive.

Zero Sex Drive Women

These are women who literally don't want sex at all, ever, for any reason. The vast majority of these women are old ladies, well over the age of 60, who have literally lost the desire to have sex. Sometimes it's for health reasons, but more often it's simply because these women don't feel sexy. Very unlike men, women need to feel at least a little sexy in order to enjoy sex. They also have a "sex is for young people" attitude and a "been there done that" attitude regarding sex that most men never get to, regardless of age.

Some of these women may have occasional feelings of horniness, where they may find solace with a vibrator, but they still have no desire to actually have sex with a living, breathing man. They find the idea of having sex a useless waste of time and not enjoyable at all.

Thankfully, women like this who are under the age of 60 are quite rare (but do exist).

Repressed Women

These are women who resist the idea of having sex because of emotional problems, problems from their upbringings, or traumatic events in their pasts.

Maybe they were beaten by their dad. Maybe they were violently raped. Maybe they were raised in a brutally oppressive religious environment. Unlike with men, women with troubled pasts like this are unable to easily bring themselves to have sex, and often have much lower sex drives as a result. They may alleviate or perhaps even "cure" this problem with things like self-reflection and therapy.

Repressed women are not like zero sex drive women. A repressed woman can have sex and can enjoy it, even really enjoy it, particularly if it's with a man who has built up a great deal of trust with her. It's just much more rare and difficult for them to do so.

Low Sex Drive Women

These are women with low sex drives; just like low sex drive men. They enjoy sex and want sex, and have no sexual "issues," but they're just not into it and don't need it very much. If they get laid once every few months, that's more than enough for them.

These women can easily go years without having any sex and be perfectly okay with it (at least mentally). Eventually though, they'll find a new guy, get excited and have a decent amount of sex during temporary NRE, then quickly go back to their once-every-few-months pattern.

Low sex drive women usually have less aggressive, mild personalities, and tend to be either Submissives or Independents. (Low sex drive Dominants exist, but are very rare. I don't think I've ever met one.)

Many low sex drive women often have extreme levels of Disney. They tend to have sex with less men than the norm and they dislike dating, meaning they tend to always either be single and alone or pair-bonded to someone.

Slow Sex Drive Women

"Slow" sex drive women are different from "low" sex drive women, although slow sex drive women are often mistaken for women with low sex drives. Women with slow sex drives are usually not horny and rarely want to actually have sex (again, general feelings of arousal and horniness do not count). They act just like low sex drive women, until they actually start having sex. Once a slow sex drive woman actually is having sex with a man she's attracted to, then suddenly she lights up, and gets super horny and very excited. At that point, she's the horniest gal you've ever seen, and is screaming at you to fuck her more, badly wants you to make her cum, and keep having sex with her for as long as you're able to do it.

This is very different from low sex drive women, who are normal people during sex, enjoying it the "normal" way. A low sex drive woman's sexual desire doesn't increase at all during sex, while a slow sex drive women's desire skyrockets during sex, and does so very quickly. Sometimes, the transformation is surprising. You start having sex and she just lays there like a dead fish, with a bored expression on her face, and then two minutes in, suddenly her eyes light up, she grabs you, kisses you, starts making all kinds noise, and is lovin' it.

In my purely anecdotal experience, slow sex drive women seem to be the fastest growing category of women out there. I have encountered many more slow sex drive women in the last three or four years than I ever did during the years prior. Make of that what you will. I have a theory that it has to do with various medical reasons, including birth control and/or testosterone levels, but it's only a theory.

Normal Sex Drive Women

These are typical, normal women. The best way to describe these women is that "they're horny when they're horny." Normally, they're just fine and not horny at all, but semi-regularly, they get horny as hell and need a cock inside them ASAP. Not often though. They're just one notch above low sex drive women, in that if they have sex about one to two times a month, they're perfectly satisfied and don't really need any more than that unless they're going through temporary NRE with someone. Many of them enjoy porn and/or vibrators just as much as having sex with a man (but they still really like men).

If they need to, they can go 30, 60, even 90 days without sex. They might be irritable and/or bitchy if they do this, but they'll still be more or less okay. Like all human beings, they will indeed suffer some dysfunction if they go too long without sex.

High Sex Drive Women

These are women crave sex pretty much all the time, and think about sex, at least a little bit, almost constantly, just like a man. However! They're still women. Their high sex drive doesn't mean they'll run out to a local bar or hit up Tinder and instantly leap on some stranger's cock whenever they get horny. ASD applies to high sex drive women just like any other women, so these women always prefer a known quantity rather than a stranger.

When a high sex drive woman craves sex, which is pretty much all the time, her hierarchy of men she wants to satisfy her need for a cock goes something like this:

1. The fuck buddy or boyfriend she's already having sex with.

2. A recent ex-fuck buddy or ex-boyfriend she used to have sex with.

3. A new guy she meets via her social circle.

4. A distant, long time ago ex-fuck buddy or ex-boyfriend.

5. A brand new guy (someone she meets at a bar or online or whatever).

High sex drive women are constantly having sex and almost never go without it. Relationshippy high sex drive women always have boyfriends and are constantly riding their cocks (they tend to cheat too). Player high sex drive women are like female Alpha Male 2.0s, and have a small harem of men whom they can text on any given day to get their needs met. Married high sex drive women fuck the crap out of their (usually beta) husbands for a while during NRE, then soon get bored and cheat (and then get divorced). Most high sex drive women tend to be hardcore serial monogamists.

Most high sex drive women (though not all) orgasm very easily, often without the man doing anything special. If a woman knows how to easily cum inside her vagina (rather than with her clit which is how most women cum), the odds are very high that she'll be a high sex drive woman. These women experience a lot more pleasure from having sex than other women, thus desire it more often.

It is my estimation that more than 50% of high sex drive women are over the age of 30, many of them over 40, since sadly, it takes about that long for most women to become completely comfortable with their bodies and sex. There are certainly high sex drive women in their 20s though.

Just as I said about high sex drive men, high sex drive women often have a lot of trouble navigating through life, since society wasn't designed for them. Even worse, high sex drive women are not as socially accepted as high sex drive men (and that's not saying much, since society doesn't like high sex drive men either; as the saying goes, "ask me how I know").

Very sadly, high sex drive women are quite rare; they are perhaps the rarest category of all the ones listed here. (As I talked about above, you can find women going through a horny time in their life, but that's not a high sex drive woman.)

Sex-As-Attention Women

These women are almost always mistaken for high sex drive women, since on the outside they look and act the same. They're actually quite different; they are essentially high sex drive women's dysfunctional sisters.

High sex drive women love sex because they love actually having sex. Sex-as-attention women love sex just as much, if not more, but because of the attention they're getting from men, not the actual sex. Sex-as-attention women are attention whores who figured out that the most intense attention they get from men is the attention they receive during sex. So, in order to get their attention fix, they run around and have tons of sex, often with tons of guys.

They don't actually need the sex; they just love the attention you're giving them during the sex. They're using sex as attention, which is probably not very healthy.

Sex-as-attention women tend to be reckless, highly promiscuous, and extroverted. Some of them actually have dark sexual pasts like repressed women, but instead of turning off sex, they dial the sex way up.

Sex-as-attention women also tend to be very theatrical and dramatic, both during and outside of sex. They're often very loud during sex and tend to be into things like role play, sex in public places, BDSM, crazy sexual positions, and similar. In other words, they're great in bed. (They make fantastic FBs!)

Unsurprisingly, most sex-as-attention women tend to be young, as in under age 25, though plenty of older sex-as-attention women exist. Many sex-as-attention women are single mothers, often with babies from multiple men. (Always make sure you're wearing a good condom with women like this!)

Sex Addicts

As when I talked about the men, technically, sex addiction isn't a type of sex drive, but I wanted to include the category here for the sake of completeness. I've already covered sex addiction in detail in this article here. The summary is that sexual addiction is not the natural and human desire for sex, but rather a dysfunctional clinical condition. A high sex drive woman craves sex because she loves it and it makes her feel good; it even "feels" good to the sex-as-attention woman. However, sex doesn't feel good to a sex addict at all; she's only doing it often to temporarily relieve a pathological, psychological obsession, much like a drug addict. She needs psychotherapy immediately.

Thankfully, true sex addiction is very rare.

That's it, the eight types of sex drive when it comes to women. Hopefully, this data will help explain problems or experiences you've had with women in the past and help prevent some in the future.

The post The 8 Types of Female Sex Drive appeared first on The Blackdragon Blog.

How Many Times.to.have Sex With.a.girl.blackdragon Blog

Source: https://blackdragon61.rssing.com/chan-69022210/all_p1.html

Posted by: graysthativess.blogspot.com

Share this post