Lately some of the comments here and in my email have taught me something: there are some real misconceptions about my views. These misconceptions are surprisingly extreme, to the degree where it’s likely many of you think I believe things I do not.
I try to do the best to convey my views as accurately and specifically as I can. However I think because of my overly blunt tone, sometimes people begin to incorrectly assume things about what I believe. Some of this is probably my fault, and some of this is probably the fault of the usual internet readership’s comprehension issues.
Since I can’t read your mind, I don’t know if you personally have any misconceptions of my views, or what they are if you do have them. So today I’ll run down a quick list of misconceptions I know certain people have had so I can set the record straight. I’ll start with the biggest one first.
1. I am pro-family. I support traditional family structures, i.e. two parents living together raising children. I support long-term pair bonding between men and women.
Some of you seem to think that just because I’m against sexual monogamy means I am for a world where everyone is running around fucking everyone else, no one ever pair bonds, kids are left behind without consistent fathers (or mothers!), the upper 5% of Alpha Males get all the chicks, and the other 95% of betas are left masturbating in the gutter.
I support two-parent, cohabiting families raising their own children. The only difference between me and you more right-wing, Alpha Male 1.0, marriage 1.0 guys is that I think both the “husband” and “wife” should be allowed to go have meaningless, discreet, condomed sex on the side while they’re playing house and raising kids, if they feel they need to. Since upwards of 70% of long-term married couples do this anyway by cheating, I think it’s stupid to do this behind people’s backs.
Instead, let’s be adults about this. Let’s bring this issue into the forefront and integrate actual human biology into the equation of long-term pair-bonding instead of relying on Disney, both the female fairy tale version or Alpha Male 1.0 1950sish version, both of which have proven to not work in the real world. Even if they don’t get divorced (which is rare), people still cheat.
Imagine all the drama, pain, hurt feelings, breakups, divorces, legal battles, financial chaos, and screwed up kids we could prevent if societal, traditional marriage included the option of having meaningless, discreet, condomed sex on the side with other people and it was no big deal for either gender. That’s just being smart. That’s what I’m for, not some kind of Caligula-like polyamory free-for-all.
Of course I wholeheartedly support “real” polyamory for those people who want to do that too, but as I’ve said many times, that will never be the majority of the population no matter how unpopular monogamy becomes. Human beings like to pair-bond, monogamy or not.
As I’ve said repeatedly for years, being in love, pair-bonding, living together, being married, and/or having and raising kids does not require 100% absolute sexual monogamy at all times. Nor should it, since human beings were never designed for such a thing.
2. I support men having children.
Bizarrely, some of you think I’m am anti-child. I always find this odd, since I myself have two kids and am open to the concept of having more. I devote two entire chapters to fatherhood and raising kids in the Alpha Male 2.0 book. I think men having children is a wonderful, wonderful thing, provided you do it correctly and provided you realize in advance that your overall happiness levels will likely drop a little while those kids are between the ages of about 3 and 16.
However! If you have kids:
- Because a woman bullies you into it.
- Before you can easily afford them, knowing how damn expensive they are.
- Before you write up a legally enforceable parenting plan with the mother (before she gets pregnant!).
…then you are a moron and a direct contributor of Western civilization’s continued collapse. I also strongly believe no Alpha Male should have children until he achieves his big goals and dreams in life. That means he should not have kids until age 35 at the very earliest; after age 40 or 45 is way better. (And if you’re worried about “birth defects,” please read this.)
There’s a right way to do things and a wrong way. Do it the right way, and I think that’s great.
So if you want to have kids, can afford them, and have legally protected yourself before having them, and have hit your big goals already, then by all means, have kids. That’s awesome and I support you. Kids are great.
3. I have no opinion regarding free will at the scientific level. My only issue is the implication behind the anti-free will argument.
To answer some of you free will or anti-free will zealots:
I don’t have enough information to form an opinion on whether or not our actions are because of free will, uncontrollable cellular biology, or a combination thereof. I’m not a doctor, brain expert, theoretical physicist, or anthropologist. Nor are most people with strong opinions about this either way, which should tell you something about these people.
What I do take issue with is the implication behind the argument against free will. The argument is “goals, systems, missions are simply coping mechanisms and are thus useless since we live in a deterministic universe,” but the implication is “therefore, don’t do anything; just kill yourself, or sit on your ass and stare at a wall all day and don’t try to improve…what’s the point?”
I don’t know if the argument is true or not, and frankly it’s not a conversation I have any interest in since I consider it esoteric and irrelevant to day-to-day life, but I 100% disagree with the implication. All of us should attempt to better ourselves to live more happy and meaningful lives, period.
Just like Conan once said (in the books, not the movies): “Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Get off your ass and IMPROVE. Get better, and be more happy. It’s up to you, and you only live once.
4. I love older women. I think women over 30 and over 40 are super hot, date them often, and love doing it.
Some of you think that I dislike older women and/or only have sex with younger women. Wrongo. At almost all times I’m seeing a woman who is well over age 35, sometimes over 45. Most of the women I consider the most beautiful in the world are well over age 30. The ultimate hottest, in my opinion, is over 40 (Sofia Vergara).
I think women over 30 and over 40 are ridiculously attractive, both physically and non-physically, and have happy FB or MLTR relationships with them all the time.
True, I don’t cold approach (online or real life) any women who are strangers to me over the age of 33, because women this age won’t have sex with strangers within two dates, which is my requirement. (This is barring the “cougar exception” when the man is very young and good looking, both of which I am not.)
However, I meet women in my social circle all the time over age 33 and date them that way. If she already knows you, that’s a “loophole” in the Over-33 Sex Appropriateness Rulebook; you can get to sex with her very fast if this is the case, assuming your game is strong. But if you meet her via daygame or OKCupid, she’ll demand a whole bunch of dinner dates before sex occurs (unless you’re a much younger man who is really good looking). Fine, I just won’t cold approach them that way then. Over-33 women are for social circle game only, unless you don’t mind waiting longer than two dates to get to sex, but if that’s the case you’re in serious beta-zone and have much bigger problems in my opinion.
I realize there is a strong contingent of older men in the manosphere who will ONLY date women who are much younger, say under 25 or under 22. I agree with what these guys are doing but I am not one of them. I will happily date women that young because they’re awesome, but I will date older women too. They’re just as awesome; only in different ways.
As I’ve said oh so many times, if you’re a woman who is good-looking and low-drama, I will date you, and I will date you forever until either of those two conditions change. I don’t care at all about your age (as long as you’re legal of course), intelligence, race, background, educational level, religion, number of children, or any of the other crap most men “screen” for. I don’t screen, I categorize. If you’re a moron, I’ll still date you forever; you’ll just be an FB. If you’re cool, you’ll be an MLTR. If you’re really amazing you’ll be a candidate for OLTR and I’ll have very high hopes for you. And I still won’t care about your age.
5. I don’t instantly kick women to the curb if they don’t put out by the end of the second date. Well…at least not exactly.
Some of you are under the impression that if I don’t have full-on sex by the end of the second date, I insta-next women. While that does happen sometimes, it’s not exactly true. I explain this in more detail in my primary ebook on dating, but here’s how I do it:
I do not attempt sex on the first date. I don’t even kiss (though I do sex talk and kino). Instead, keep the date to one hour to build just enough attraction, interest, curiosity, and comfort, and then I get the hell out of there and vanish. On the second date, I have her come directly over to my house and I escalate to sex. If she is very cold and clearly doesn’t want to have sex, or gives me the “I’m a lady speech,” or whatever, boom, insta-next! She’s gone, and I’m on to the next woman on the list.
However, if no sex occurs but there’s lots of passionate makeouts / feelouts and similar and she clearly is interested in me, then okay, I will allow her one more date with me to prove herself, where again, I will escalate hard to sex. On this third date, there must be sexual progression. That means there must be more sexual things happening on this date than on the second date.
If on this date she kisses me and does the exact same stuff she did on the second date but adamantly refuses to go further, boom, insta-next, she’s gone, and I’m on to the next woman on the list. I don’t need to have sex on the first date, but I will not continue to date a woman without having sexual activity with her. What a silly concept. The practice of dating with no sex is the single dumbest thing women (mostly those over age 33) have come up with and I want no part of it. How ridiculous. Seriously, are we in high school?
But! If instead she takes some clothing off or I get oral sex or something else sexually new happens, then okay, I’ll give her one more date after that, and again, there better be something “new” on that date (usually it’s sex).
This system works and almost never do I have to wait four entire dates for sex by using it. I honestly can’t even remember when I actually had to wait that long for sex. I almost always get to sex on date two; rarer times I get sexual stuff on date two and sex on date three.
So there you go. It’s not like I demand full-on sexual intercourse on date two and then hard next. I go for that, but will maintain a woman as long as there is real sexual progression. Otherwise she’s just frigid and leading me on, and she has forgotten that there’s another woman right around the corner just as hot and cool as she is who will happily have sex with me by date two (as I discuss in my podcasts).