The sexual underclass is still raging, online
What happens to the people who feel like losers, but don't act?
I'm adapting the title from this essay, "The Creative Underclass is Still Raging," with one essential word replaced. There are two things about the essay that stand out… the smaller, is, "When it comes to anger online, our cup floweth over." That anger is so prevalent is one reason why I try to tend towards being positive over negative. Negativity is plentifully supplied so I'm going to try to do the opposite.[1]
The other is how easily the essay can be adapted from the "creative" underclass to the (real / perceived) male sexual underclass.[2] Instead of trying to succeed at the "creative" arts or "creative" sectors (software and math seem hugely creative to me, but never mind that), apply that same analysis to sex. This paragraph is emblematic,
These people look out at a world filled with creators creating, look at the considerable benefits they accrue (in money, yes, but more importantly in status) and they want. They want what others have. And want breeds resentment, especially when it’s so plain that some of the people who have succeeded have done so despite no clear advantage in talent, worth, or effort. They have absorbed the contemporary left critique of capitalism as an arbitrary and fickle distributor of reward, but without the steadying influence of the old left’s valorization of working, of the dignity and value of work.
Let me rewrite it, with some important changes,
These people look out at a world filled with people f**king, including pr0n performers (notice the resentment of onlyfans girls), look at the considerable sexual benefits they accrue (including in status) and they want. They want the women others have. And want breeds resentment, especially when it’s so plain that some of the people who have succeeded have done so despite no clear advantage in talent, worth, or effort. They have absorbed the contemporary left critique of the sexual marketplace as an arbitrary and fickle distributor of reward, but without the steadying influence of the old right's valorization of family, of the dignity and value of raising children.
I can do a similar job with a lot of the essay but I'm going to leave most of the rest to you, reader. But I do see this, “I’m just trying to wrestle with why online life is so unpleasant and to identify one piece of why,” and I think there is a lot to the essay here, but the sexual element is missing. And the sexual element is different in important ways between men and women. The normal stuff people do, like have families, feels unavailable to a lot of the creative / sexual underclass people, leading to increasing bitterness and cope with age. And then there is this,
Ultimately, I think all we can do is further commit to a project we should be engaged in anyway: shattering the myth of just deserts [sic]. Reminding people that they don’t control their own destinies. Insisting on the truth that chance and path dependence play huge roles in our lives. Giving no ground to the myth of the self-made man.
I don’t know what “just desserts” are in creative or sexual terms, or even family formation terms. But while it’s true that not everyone gets what they deserve, whatever that means, it’s also true that people who try harder and more effectively succeed more often, whereas those who don’t try, don’t. Game is the focus of Red Quest and it’s obvious to everyone who applies themselves to game that better game, which is another way of saying “better social skills,” does improve sexual outcomes. The questions proliferate from there: “How much does it improve them?, where is the guy starting from?, etc.” “Creative” jobs are hard to evaluate because there are so few jobs in movies, music, etc. The game is nice because the sexual marketplace is effectively infinitely big in the bigger cities. But people do have a lot of control in their own destinies. p != 1.0 but it also isn’t 0.0 or even 0.25. Guys who believe they have no control over their lives are right... guys who believe they have lots of control over their lives are also right. It’s one of these things where “what you believe determines your outcomes.”
For some of the guys who feel like they underperformed and who manage to get ahold of enough game to succeed, particularly the ones with distant or narcissism mothers,[3] there could be no way to succeed and no way to eventually bond with a woman. For some of the guys who feel like chronic underperformers and who have with avoidant attachment styles, the guys who sleep with hundreds of women, it's never enough. That's where the discourse about guys with three-digit body counts being "broken" comes up. The impulse to label them with "brokenness" isn't usually elaborated or explored but I think it's somewhere in there.
It's not original to observe that, for the most physically desirable women, an infinite number of photos and videos of them are available online. This probably has some effect on the psyches and expectations of many guys. Marketing tells us that if we buy the product, the attractive women will want to have sex with us (this isn't true, no matter how many busty women in their teens and twenties are shown or implied in the ads).
The convenient thing about pr0n is that the women never talk, or, if they do, what they say is immaterial, so the viewer never has to think about a relationship with the woman would look like apart from sex... he never has to know, viscerally and fully, that, for every beautiful woman, there's some guy who's sick of her shit. So the sexual underclass, who are probably most guys in this rewards-skewed market, gets a faceful of sex, often deliberately but sometimes when he's merely scrolling his whatever feed, and this steady diet makes him think the other guys are getting what he's not. Mostly, the other guys are playing video games, but the very top guys are getting the sexual spoils... never mind that at some point the sexual spoils are like too much honey and sugar: maybe, if overindulged, not so good for you after all.[4]
Many, many things are easier than improving your social and escalation skills with women, including pr0n, video games, “social” media, and being angry online. The sexual underclass isn’t getting laid much or at all, freeing up lots and lots of time to be angry online. Do you want to be angry online, or do you want to win?
[1]Feel free to observe the failures. But you should look at any system and consider the supply-demand issue. What’s in short supply? Is whatever is in short supply valuable?
[2]There is also a female sexual underclass, but that’s an underclass that is usually worried about hypergamy, as in, “Why won’t a higher status guy commit to me?” A lot of the overeducated, underemployed female sexual underclass lives in cities like Washington DC, NYC, or LA, where life is every expensive (liberal voters really like to practice extensive exclusion through their land-use policies), and so “affording” a family seems out of reach... unless that semi-mythical attractive, wealthy, exciting man wants to descend and rescue that journalism / theatre arts major from her bad choices.
So when I would do seminars [about The Game], I would say, let me ask you, how many people here were raised with a narcissistic or dominant mother figure? Every time it was about 80 percent of the room. And then when you start to realize, ok, this has nothing to do with the world, it’s just me, I’ve got to get over it—that’s when everything kind of changes.
Is that you? The game is still going to be helpful, but the deeper ability to bond with other people, especially women, is going to be found in a therapist’s office.
[4]“Romance fiction” is pr0n for ladies. Ladies can also enact short-term sex with high-quality men as much as they like, and so they have other challenges. [levels of discussion.] Women are pretty much never like, "How do I get more guys to have sex with me?" (Strategy: "Ask them!"). They are always like: "How do I get the top guy to commit to me?" Okay, they don't say "top guy" in those words, I admit, but that's what they're shooting for.
“the deeper ability to bond with other people, especially women, is going to be found in a therapist’s office”
Is this true, either in principle or practice? I suspect anyone at the level of self awareness and literacy to be reading this article would be poorly served by therapy.
Without actually *bonding* with someone you cannot learn. While working on removing behaviors that act as barriers and learning behavors to bridge gaps is going to be (in principle) achievable from therapy, therapy is likely peak ‘blue pill’ so it will be a mixed bag and you will learn some anti-skills (I’ll ignore possible gains from sex therapy/surrogacy, this seems at least potentially useful for big wins on bonding and physical intimacy if someone is at a very low level; a red quest reader in a state where this is legal or otherwise tolerated would do us a favour by trying and reporting their experiences back in a guest post(s))..
I suspect a pet, to learn some basic responsibility and *actually* bonding, supplemented with judicious exposure to role models (books, video, real life if possible; for example, reading ‘uncle red quest’) would go much further. If you cannot bond with a pet, with many basically bred for the human-animal bond, you are not going to reliably attract a healthy enough woman for long enough to be able have healthy experiences to learn bonding.
If someone is squarely in ‘bottom world’ they are in for a rough time getting out. Therapy is expensive and much of it plain wrong, but if one is severely broken any intervention to limit negativity and help you identify self defeating behavior is going to be important—and you likely have no access to functional people in your life so you are buying access to a limiting factor to your success. If one is near the top of bottom world I’m not sure therapy is a clear win and might limit rather than accelerate growth. I doubt anyone who can read this blog (with the necessary attention span, awareness, literacy, desire to change, …) is deep in bottom world.
Of people I know who have relied on therapy in making life changes/choices there are mixed results, with some disastrous outcomes where their life was made harder (family, finance, work, social standing, and other losses) based on blue pill views that are laughable bad. The main positive outcomes are mainly “get through a bad time without topping oneself or making other rash decisions”. But the typical case is chronic use of therapy as an outlet and keeping themselves convinced their choices are good (often essentially outsourcing choice and responsibility to “experts”); those cases often seem to be an anxiety reduction holding pattern. I am not aware of anyone I know personally who actually had major positive life changing improvements due to therapy, though most people I talk to about these matters are middle to upper middle class so have less need or desire (these are obviously related) to make such dramatic change and improvements. But “learning bonding” is going to be a much harder problem than “not topping oneself after a limited setback to a success and relatively easy life”, I just don’t see the typical therapist helping beyond getting someone closer to *zero* and ready to start positive gains, and I don’t see them doing this that effectively.
I’m pessimistic in that I think problem’s people have are near impossible to significantly change, at least on the time scales we want to hear about. That’s why they are a ‘problem’. Our expectations also often have to have a serious (downward) recalibration. Half decade minimum of hard work, with limited positive feedback, and all to each a level below what we would like is realistic for any one problem, and many people have many serious problems (not physically attractive, negatively/vibe problems, financially precarious, poor verbal ability, no useful family, no bonding experience, not smart, …). I believe lifting, reading, crafting a positive/active mindset, getting a Labrador, and other *concrete actions* is going to superior to *talking* to, and seeking consul of, a blue pill advocate, for most—and almost definitely for your readers.
TLDR; Having a bad coach who barely knows the game rules and certainly not the game (or how to motivate and teach) is not going to help you play football better, unless you really, really suck.
I want to win, Mr. Quest