Responsibility and later seduction. Internal congruence

Another topic that gets no play in the Red Pill and seduction communities, cause most guys don't get to this later stage, it is not good to trifle with women who are heavily investing in you. This damages the woman and while it is psychologically appealing to the guy (it's nice to have the attention and desire you can return... or not), but it creates bad feelings and outcomes. Power over women who invest happens after the guy gets game and deploys it effectively, meaning that most guys never get it and this post is not for them, so this subject confuses them, like stories about a culture they've never visited and can't believe exists.

I know the logical counter to this point (about the wisdom of refusing or discouraging investment that won't be reciprocated)... "But chicks do this all the time!" True, true. But mature chicks don't encourage male investment and male suitors who don't interest them. Immature chicks... greedy chicks... they will, and that's why so many younger guys have problems with the "friend zone" and perceived female uncertainty. Younger guys don't follow the algorithm and don't effectively sort girls into ones who might f**k and ones who won't. I didn't either when I was young & stupid, not to worry. I was afraid of "no," when "no" is a gift, a gift of my time & attention so that I can direct them consciously into better things.

Mature guys... also don't spend a lot of time and investment in women who are unlikely to be lovers. If a woman isn't interested... the guy withdraws and finds a woman who is. Many chicks, if attention and gifts are foisted on them by inept men, will accept those... but if you are foisting gifts on a woman who hasn't earned them, then you kinda deserve what you get. Immature guys believe gifts and attention should be rewarded with sex... when it's actually closer to the other way around. No one in our female-dominated culture discusses to this.

This gets me to my point... when a woman's emotions and sex habits are connecting and converging into you... it is not good to trifle with her, lead her on, and jerk her around. You will damage her, and inflict needless cruelty, and for what? If you have decent game, the sex part may be challenging, but it shouldn't be infinitely so.

Some dysfunctional women prematurely invest when they shouldn't, or they can't help themselves because the man is unusual and matches their interest, or is much higher SMV than they are. If she does that... it is not your fault. But you should let go, want to let go, chicks who are deeply converting but who you don't fancy in that way. At least tell them that you're not going to be their boyfriend but can be their lover. Set expectations.

This is emerging from my own experiences and from conversation with a player who is interested in non-monogamy and who has found a woman who has also been searching for this her entire life, searching for a way to reconcile mind and body, emotions and physicality. Like libido girl and a number of others I've met, she craves the novelty of new sex... but wants a relationship too. Most guys, if they advance from casual sex into something more structured with a woman, won't want a woman like this (they really want a woman who will be monogamous to them). There are a lot of pretend non-monogamous guys, and even more strictly monogamous guys (when you get down to it). Women who are sexually adventurous but with hearts and the desire to pair-bond... it's actually not easy for them. Even with monogamous women, their real, true, and full investment is intense. For the bulk of guys who have never experienced the intensity of female emotional and sexual investment.... this issue will be invisible. Like "how to end it" with a woman. It's advanced stuff. Beginners mistake compassion for weakness. Don't worry, I did too, once.

I'm against being mean to people. Yes, women will sometimes be mean to you, they will try to take value from you without giving it in return. Yes, it is sometimes appropriate to be mean to people, or direct in a way that is seen as mean. But what is perceived as mean or cruel is often just a balancing of the scales of value.

Notice what I am NOT doing. I am not arguing against casual sex (it would be funny if I did, given my history). I am not arguing against deepening relationships with women. I am not arguing that women are innocent damsels (they are not, and the innocent damsel trope is a lie men tell themselves in order to be p***y... in the real world, almost no one is "innocent"). "Beyond casual sex" is more fun than just f**king strangers in my view. But... I am arguing that it's bad for you and for the woman to let a woman deeply invest in your and convert to you, if you don't set expectations, or if you plan to just let her dangle. Cut her loose and let her invest in someone else. The world is already harsh and full of bitterness.... no need to make it harsher and more bitter. It's bad for the man's subconscious. Keeping your subconscious aligned with your accessible consciousness is a part of frame, a part of being congruent that, again, no one talks about. Low status guys, f**ked up guys, are incongruent, and their low value and incongruence messes with their inner game. Higher-status, higher-class guys maintain congruence and have a keen sense of loose equality in terms of value given and value taken. This is getting a bit on the "hippie" side of things, about consciousness development, but I think that's where the the higher levels of game live. Levels a lot of guys never hit, cause they can't get past the lower levels.

Most women, by the way, never access higher levels of consciousness. If they do, they are already post-wall, and it is too late for them to access those levels via sexuality. Most younger women rely on men to get them there, and most men disappoint. That's part of the reason we see the discord we see.

Seek for the higher levels. Discourage investment where it's not warranted. If you see signs of her emotional investment, decide consciously if you want to respond in kind or keep her at a distance. The beginning parts of the game are important but so is the middle and end, where few guys live and where almost no guys writing online discuss.

The more time you spend around women, the more you realize most of them are basically irresponsible and want someone else to make decisions for them. This is why we have the crazy Title IX man-hunting tribunal in the United States and why so many women distance themselves from their sexual choices. This is also why so few women make it to the top of corporate and other hierarchies, because an individual has to be intensely responsible for his choices if he's going to be a leader, not just a follower—something that most women can't do. Men who have a lot of experience with women also learn that most women like to follow and so men are reluctant to put women in leadership roles, for good reason. Almost no feminists will admit this, leading to the absurd statements about women in companies that shrieking harpies propagate in the media.

I actually have no problem with women running companies or whatever, but I don't think you'll ever see as many women in leadership roles because it's contrary to baseline female psychology. If a woman wants to be responsible for a large company and has the personality and intellect to do so, then that's dandy. It's just unlikely. Most women want men to take responsibility for them... and when she lets a guy into her soul, and then he chucks her aside, she's wounded. Try not to let her do that. A guy who starts off low status might want to be mean, as revenge... but he's really taking revenge on himself, for putting up with behavior he shouldn't have. No reason to do that. The world is hard enough.