Seduction artistry lessons from "Stop being mean to slutty women" and "Conservatives suck at art"

Some guys understand non-linear thinking, but most don't

It's tricky to find the space where "new ideas" or "new ways of observing old ideas" intersects with "right," "plausible," and/or interesting. Most people who think they're dissident / contrarian are in fact just fools. So I’m reading Walt Bismarck’s “Stop being mean to slutty women | It codes as low status and doesn't accomplish anything” and “Conservatives suck at art | Dissecting the right's biggest problem,” which have lessons for seduction artists (who are rare) and, much commonly, wannabe seduction artists. 

Bismarck gets that smart, competent people live in a different world than people who are neither (“Obviously this will be a controversial view because of the huge class element at play”). The guys discussing the seduction arts and game rarely have 1. high IQ, 2. high-enough competence in most domains, and 3. emotional stability. The ones who do rarely speak to game matters for long. And many guys lack all three. Humorously, many think they have all three when in fact they have none (I have… a number that commenters can speculate about). “The curious, cautionary fates of many of the guys who go deep into game and Internet” is a reflection of the typically low-quality of guy who gets into these topics. There is also a reason why I wrote about how guys need status and coolness first before talking about seduction arts or adjacent spaces. The majority of guys interested in it lack both, and when they try to talk about it, they come across as lame at best. Being blind to status dynamics retards a guy’s ability to have any influence at all.

Top guys either understand how communication, particularly female-coded communication, works, or they have high-enough status to compensate for not understanding communication. Most guys don’t get this and their failure to understand it undercuts their potential and sex lives. Because they don’t understand how women communicate, many are baffled by women. This means tremendous returns, however, to guys who can learn how these things work. There is a level of the seduction arts at which guys think that improving their game means memorizing lines or routines, or saying the right thing. There is a level above that in which guys realize it’s as much how they say it as what they say. There are levels above that where guys perceive the totality of the social matrix and what people are actually saying at a subtextual level.

Very few guys, probably under 5%, reach the higher levels.

Red Quest is consciously targeting guys who have gotten past the basics and are starting to face the problems of top guys. Bismarck wrote a better summary of Red Quest, and why it repels most guys vaguely interested in the seduction arts, than any I've written or thought: "The simple fact of the matter is that elite men often prefer slutty women.”

Low-status “chuds” (a favorite Bismarck word) and anxious guys don’t understand the world of top guys... 

A guy who gets laid easily isn’t thinking about minimizing the chance his wife cheats on him or divorces him. He’s thinking about maximizing the chance that she lets him get a side chick or will be down for a threesome. It’s not about raising the floor so much as raising the ceiling."

Guys who get laid live in a different world from the ones who don't, and most guys who get laid as naturals, or natural-enoughs, never become interested in breaking down the process. RQ covers intermediate and advanced topics in a world that overwhelmingly caters to raw beginners, many of whom are so f*cked up to start with that they'll never make it to the intermediate level, let alone beyond, while many of the "elite men" Bismarck describes were essentially born at the intermediate level and above. They often grow up with positive male role models. They get positive feedback from chicks starting at an early age. 

Many are high IQ and thus come from families that have money, and they go off and make money themselves. I hesitate to mention “money” because men so often misunderstand money’s role and purpose. “Money” is not going to get you chicks. Generating emotional connection gets chicks. Attraction is most often the result of a woman’s emotional engagement. Few women are emotionally engaged by money. Most men are too inept to properly generate emotional engagement, and so many men foolishly chase money and material things without realizing chicks don’t care much about them. BUT! money does make for an easier life, a better wardrobe, veneers, more opportunities for sports when young, and more attention on things that aren’t money. Money isn’t irrelevant, though most guys wrongly think that “chicks like guys with money” as a cope for their own extensive erotic failures. I’ve never been rich but have learned a whole lot about chicks. 

From |Conservatives suck at art|, 

My approach recognizes that society isn’t a computer that can be programmed in a systematic and predictable way, but rather a living and breathing organism that does lots of weird shit. You need to approach it like a physician, not a software engineer.

And therein lies the biggest flaw of rationalism and adjacent schools of conservative and centrist thought—too many goddamned programmers.

This directly correlates to my writing on how male nerds don't understand women. There's text and subtext, and most social and sexual material happens in subtext, which a lot of linear nerdy guys don't get. Shape rotators are overrepresented among men, while wordcels are overrepresented among women. Top guys are often able to context switch or code switch between being a shape rotator (this is where the money is) and wordcelism (this is good for seducing women, language being the ultimate tool of seduction). Most guys are poor at both, then wonder why chicks don’t like them. 

Some guys are surprised by the unemployed baristas & bartenders living in a broken-down apartment with only a mattress on the floor and a machine-learning rig with an ergonomic keyboard in the corner, yet who get laid all the time. Those guys usually have good masculinity, a solid don't-give-a-shit attitude, and confidence… things that a lot of six-figure nerds lack, and don't bother to cultivate and develop. Those guys are often far superior at banter and subtext than the richer, better-on-papers guys who don't get laid. 

Although I think Bismarck’s writing is deeper than most and plausible, I have some disagreeableness and so want to highlight at least one thing that is wrong... the right’s biggest problem is not sucking at art; it’s basic epistemology. Getting to the truth matters. The left can’t tell anything like the truth regarding race or sex, but on a lot of other topics it’s pretty good. The right has embraced dumb conspiracy theories, and has entered into some kind of mass psychosis that prevents it from being factually correct about even very basic things. Maybe the right’s basic epistemology problem happens because so many of the chuds in it are in thrall to a grifting conman. And probably they are in thrall because of basic problems with IQ and handling reality. That would explain a lot of things that may be unpleasant to rightoids. 

Rightoids seem to watch TV instead of reading, and that may also explain poor epistemology. Starting with Newt Gingrich in the ‘90s, the right seemed to get steadily dumber and more hypocritical. The left has gotten dumber on the race / gender topics, but it’s still interested in understanding how governance works, in a way that the right isn’t. The right has embraced an incoherent blend of chaos and authoritarianism, though... 

Real chaos is never glamorous, and doesn’t have an emergent order. You can’t negotiate with chaos, because it never keeps its promises. Real chaos means bleak uncaring randomness. It means senseless and arbitrary cruelty. It means rule not by the strongest, but by those with the least to lose. It means a life of slavery to appetite and sentiment and impulse, undirected by any higher ideals.

One needs to balance order and chaos, and the right is unbalanced. It would be good for the country and world for the right to find its way again. 

Sex parties and non-monogamy balance order and chaos. A lot of monogamy is heavily about order, and too much order is boring. A lot of drug and alcohol hookup culture is too chaotic. Sex clubs and non-mono try to bring order and chaos into balance... I often speak of couple to couple reciprocity as “balancing equations.” No one is left out. It’s powerful to do the things I’ve done, for those who can handle it. Plenty of guys can’t, cause they let themselves go, have no game / ability to talk to women, etc. 

“Swingers” seem to be more right coded and right wing, while “polyamorous” people seem to be more left coded and left wing. I don’t know why, but others have remarked on it, and it seems true to my experience. I’d expect left wingers to be more into group sex, since they’re more open to experience and less conscientious, but there’s plenty of right wing in some parts of the country. 

Regarding art, maybe you have noticed that RQ talks about books... while the rest of what passes for the seduction-artist community or, worse, "manosphere," can't get beyond short-form videos like tiktoks. With no attention span, how are guys building authentic value or learning valuable, non-commodity information? They aren't, and then they wonder why the top women elude them. The answer is in their very being, the way they choose to live every day... it is in their soul. 

Don’t take Walt Bismarck too seriously, however… there are some interesting ideas, but also some b*llshit…