The subject of this post is how two different types of high n-count men get that way, and why one approach takes more "work" than the other.

I was talking to Guy X yesterday: 6’1”, low-30s, in shape, moderately successful, socially capable, above averagely handsome with an n-count over 50. Sounds like a winner. But he describes the effort it took to get those women as a "full-time job" in which he does 100% of the work, and adds that the women themselves as not always very attractive. He believes this is just the reality of dating.

That’s surprising to me: most guys I know who rack up numbers like that do so rather easily. They're picky, women meet them with mutual interest and effort, maybe have one cheap “real” date (often, less), hang out for a couple of weeks, part as friends, repeat. It’s play, not work. Sure, some of them are great looking, but most are what I—and speaking as a proxy based on prior conversations, the women around me—would consider in the “above average” range. They’re not models or Henry Cavilles or anything like that. They’re also not rich, high status or built like superheroes—nothing that obvious that would make them outliers. So I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between Guy X and Guy Y.

Maybe this is a lack of imagination on my part, but it seems reasonable that the difference could be their personalities. But what does “personality” mean here?

I think it comes down to this: most straight men are man’s men, or think they should be. They desire women, but don’t necessarily relate to them or want to. Success in dating thus requires them to cross the traditional gender gap with masculine strategies. That crossing takes WORK—which is why so much red pilled dating advice is about getting muscles, getting money, getting confidence, asserting dominance, holding frame, et cetera. It's proactive. Even the axiom “it’s a numbers game” reveals the expectation of having to try over and over and over again. Red pilled advice is for how to be successful as a Guy X.

Blue pilled advice is about how to be successful as a Guy Y.

Where red pilled theory may be cynical, blue pilled is naive. The goal is not to cross the gap, but to shrink it until there is nothing keeping men and women apart. That’s why such advice tends to minimize perceived differences between genders, embrace female perspectives,encourage authenticity (the dreaded “be yourself”), support inter-gender friendships, and so on. The ideal Guy Y doesn’t work hard to get women—he's integrated with women and has good vibes.

Look, depending on who you are, the exact advice you’re given and how you choose to take it, either approach can be totally viable, or delusionally insane. I've seen both work many times, but only one actually looks like work while it's happening. And, let’s be real, both Guy X and Guy Y have to be physically attractive to be very successful—though what “attractive” means is a whole other post.

So I think what’s important is ultimately not looking down on either type of Guy, or dismissing either theory of dating as “misogynistic” or “cucked,” like I see online every day. Maybe it’s just a matter of identifying what type of Guy you are and playing to those strengths.