Catch and release women who want families

Help people be their best selves

It's wise to release older chicks (at least age 25, likely older) who want to have a family, when you (a man) don't want one, or don't want one yet, or don't want one with her.

This point emerges emerges from Nash's post, Back to daygame, a breakup, and a close call… he breaks up with an amazing chick, “Miss Thick,” because "her kids/family goals were real and that I respected them." I wanted to know how old she is...

She is 29… and from China. She’s a “Chinese” girl at heart… but an artsy, and unusual one.

Then I like the idea of letting her go and not having her dangle a lot of prime reproductive years. Let her go and tell her that, if her next serious relationship doesn't work out, she can come back for a month or two of fun and recovery.

She may come back… or not.

That's in line with what I wrote about frame and non-monogamy,

over time [most] women have a biological need to find guys to have kids with and subsidize them and their kids. That’s part of the reason long-term, undefined, FWBs-type relationships are so uncommon. Few chicks will allow them, at least past the age of 25. Even if they do, they will drop the FWB when they find a hot-enough provider guy.

(If you’re dating a chick under the age of 25 in a contemporary Western country, you can ignore the last two paragraphs, because chicks that age are all about the feelz and the hot sex.)

Seduction artists know that it's uncommon to have an undefined FWB-type relationship with a girl for more than a few months, up to like a year. Most chicks who don't have a family want one, and that is good… if they don’t, there’s usually something wrong with them. They may f**k up en route to getting a family, they may hit menopause, they may say they want one thing while in a cold state and do another thing while horny, but they want a family most of the time.

[Nash says "Lover" is a better word than "FWB," and I also misstated minor parts of Nash's story.]

Guys who are dating women over age 26 – 29 should cut those women free and tell them, "Girl, go get your provider guy." This advice goes against some of the "Red Pill" comments amid the hardass maxims of anger phase warriors.

Guys can string along a girl through a lot of her prime fertility years... yes, the girl should be responsible and break it off, but girls are weak, just like guys, and prone to wishful thinking... just like guys. Guys who put girls in that position will also often find... SURPRISE!... the birth control failed and you're going to be a DADDY! You jack her around, she'll jack you around.

It's unnecessary and cruel to waste years of a woman's prime child-bearing life, and a guy with strong game will find another girl, maybe a better one. So the chick who wants kids the guy isn't going to willingly provide should be released. Her family is the most important part of her life and you should help her lead her best life.

I'm not saying you shouldn't sleep with chicks age 25 - 40, that would be insane. Those chicks want one-night stands and orgasms and hot lovers, just like younger chicks. I'm only saying you shouldn't string them along for long periods of prime fertility time. You should be direct about not being their baby's father. It's tempting to tell her, "Maybe I'll want kids... someday..." while her eggs wither.

Be the bigger person and enable people to live the right way. For most women, that means letting her have her family. Normal girls in the right age bracket who want kids will leave the guy when she figures out he's a player, but some need the push. Be honest, then let her go when she's ready.

If a guy gets into a position of strength, he should get into the habit of helping people build the right lives (this is NOT being a doormat "nice guy"). Guys in a position of strength and choice shouldn't string along chicks in their prime fertility years. Guys in a position of strength should try to help others become who they are meant to become.

I don't preach about living better. Not much. I do show it. That means zero sugar. That means inviting chicks (and guys!) to the gym. I'm not doing deadlifting on the first date, but if I'm going to the gym I invite her to go, whoever the "her" is. I've probably taught ten or fifteen girls how to swim for exercise or how to lift. That's ten or fifteen more than most guys. If a girl is going to become part of my life, she's going to do what I do and learn how to do it. Most guys have lives of TV, video games, and Internet. Not much of interest to a girl in there.

Those girls also know I'm serious about the body. Talking about the joys of lifting in an online dating profile won't totally repel fatties but it will help. And when I meet a girl for a drink for a first date, if she's too fat, sometimes I'll just leave... I'll invite her to the gym. Not necessarily that night but in two days or whenever. Their reactions are funny. Especially the ones who say, "Are you saying I'm fat?" Easy response: "I'm saying I'm going to the gym and you should come."

In a position of strength, a guy can say, "I want you to go find a man who will give you a family. In the meantime, if you want to keep having fun with me, do it. If you find a guy and things don't work out and you want a break, text me."

Sometimes she will. Chicks can be like comets, swinging into a guy's solar system for a couple weeks at a time.

I also have weird ethics. I think women in the 27 – 40 age range who genuinely want children should be released by guys who catch them and who have investment from those women. This essay only applies to a guy with a woman who is invested. If she's not invested it doesn't count.

If a guy's game is strong and he's in the secret society, he won't have trouble moving on to the next woman. But in my ethical inversion, I like sleeping with chicks who have boyfriends or husbands (now you can see why I don't talk about the deepest shit with people I know). Not even swingers or poly people will admit that kind of thing. I think humans are ill-equipped for long-term monogamy and that if she's available for seduction, I want me in her instead of some other guy swooping in. Among humans, women are the guardians of sex, men are the guardians of commitment. Feminism tries to obscure that basic fact, but it is true.

Next post up should continue the non-monogamy theme. It's the one I keep mentioning, about how sex clubs layer on top of conventional game. In my view, for the right man they are a powerful tool, but I don't think I've seen any active game guys writing about them.

Addition: "I’m Broke and Mostly Friendless, and I’ve Wasted My Whole Life"  is a case study of a woman who fails to realize that family matters more than partying. I've dated and f**ked women like her. She is the sort of woman who a guy not interested family should catch & release. She is also in New York, where the male-female ratio favors men because there are more women than men. The dumb writers of these articles and letters never talk about this. Failure to talk ratio and dating market is like watching people trying to calculate curves & trajectories without calculus. Doesn't work well.

Help people lead better lives. Win and help win. Do it for yourself, but do it for others, too.