Hi everyone,

Another continuation post on the relationship whilst doing daygame.

I've done a daygame regularly for half a year, almost as a primary activity of mine. This allowed me to achieve results like 1 one-night lay a month (with relatively poor sex, frankly). Then, for the past 3 months, I've been into a relationship with a quite good gal. Been doing sex for days on end, including more deeper things, like tantric sex, meditation during sex, etc. Not to say, quite emotionally bounding. Her - well, I've been consistently making her orgasm like 3-5 times a night (mb, not me specifically, but also her's hypersensitivity).

It all began relatively focused all around sex, but then more things popped up, like going together to meet each other's friends, celebrate her birthday, gifting, etc. Not that I was too much "oneitis" crap, but it is emotionally bounding also on my side. All the while, I was thinking and concerned with the dilemma of "I wanna have more seduction experience before relationships, but this girl is just too good to go with these 1.5h 3 times a week hardworking routine sessions of grinding approaches and managing emotional swings, besides having a lot of other shit to do, like work, gym". So, recently something has changed (or I have changed my perception) that it's near-certain that I will want to get more lays (and hence, this relationship is not going much anywhere).

So, recently I've invited her to my place, and she rejected (saying, that she has other stuff to do on the weekend). Quite reasonably - when we meet, we are off for 2-3 full days and not work much, being late on the projects, etc. This is a fall out of frame, I reckon. Which sent me into a spiral of thinking about the alternatives, like going for a daygame session today to practice daygame (didn't do so for 3 months or so). This basically means close to an edge of declaring her as a "one of the girls", rather than "a girl with deep sex", which was quite good.

Now, I might be quite paranoid and cautious myself about the relationships and the girl snatching a frame, or over-investing in the girl, and so on, and so forth. But, this indeed might become a red flag to consider, depending on her's and mine actions. And since I am inexperienced in relationships (this is my first, at the age of 25 - wasn't good before, hence learning daygame in the first place), I am a high risk in falling in the wrong patterns of behaviour, sadly.

But this is not a post about this specific girl, nor me asking the advice on how to behave with her specifically, but rather about my thoughts how certain psychological mechanisms might be influential in learning daygame (and by that, I mean not just a couple of PUA tricks, but at a somewhat intermediate/profound level). Me myself am likely a lucky individual, with a relatively high SMV (on the basis of height, body and intelligence). Together with daygame (which is really about removing my anti-game patterns, like gamma behaviour, neediness, scarcity mentality etc.), I am likely to be quite close to Mystery (as he is also tall, intelligent, and been socially awkward with women). Who is quite good, really, even though he's too much on the "scientific, repeated pattern-driven daygame", more suitable for beginners.

However, here's the catch, I think - one must not only have high SMV and daygame potential, but importantly - the crazed drive to fucking put in countless hours (I am talking about thousands or tens of thousands of hours) in a seemingly pointless activity, other than just to become slightly more skilled with women. Krauser told about "inner demons crawling at the doorsteps of the soul", who "are to be kept away by the daygame results, which are sufficient to do so". As such, we have two parts: "inner demons" and "sufficient daygame results". I'd like to decompose them.

Starting with the "inner demons", we are likely having some sort of narcissistic personality disorder, likely arriving from the childhood traumas, like over-bearing parents, absent parents, psychological or physical abuse, hypersensitive introversion, or whatever (I am just an amateur psychologist, learning what's useful for me). Equally, we might have the other two from the "dark triad": a psychopath and a macheviallist. The former is a person, who's lacking remorse, and who is generally profoundly emotionally disconnected from the individuals. He's different from an autist in that the psychopath is generally well-aware of the "functional aspects" of the emotional state of others and their personal needs. The latter is a person, who's not afraid to employ manipulating tactics, to study people well enough to find out their interests, and manipulate them in such a way, that machiavellist's goals are achieved, in a quite utilitarian moral standpoint. All of these may lay on a spectrum (so it's not binary), as well as these may be likely genetically inherited and developed in the "correct" environment (usually, which is psychologically hurtful, a very likely situation in the shitty human world).

Then, these "inner demons" are either avoided, hidden from ("freeze" response), or battled. "Freeze" response is generally a person, who's a dark triad, but without the benefits of it (i.e., a person, who's weak and shitty, like a gamma). Avoidance from is basically the same, I think, except that a person is more confident, and more proactive in the society. I mean, it's more like some typical intermediate daygamer, who might be feeling "bad", but doesn't give a shit about it much, and who is trying to achieve sufficient results. One who "battles" those might be like a typical "badboy on the light side" - like a vigilante (Punisher) or an FBI agent catching cartel drugdealers, or something. It's inherently a very strong personality, and one who may be 10x times "good-er" than a typical average Joe, going to work back and forth, having a wifu, playing videogames. I think, together with some "avoidance", it may lead to a truly "badboy", like a kingpin drugdealer (Scarface), with some sense of morality.

And then, a daygamer, who's obsessed enough to proceed to the "sufficient results", is either avoiding, or battling the demons. I think, it's unlikely a 100% battle strategy would mean a master PUA motivation, as such a person would quickly find out what he truly wants, which might not be daygaming thousands of hours, increasing the lay count, following the inner "notch count hyena's" squeeky roar. One who's "not exactly there on the light side", who's intelligent enough, and who's having some SMV basis (I mean, LMS), and who's inner inclinations are somewhat oriented towards hedonism and sexing - is a perfect candidate for pushing the personal boundaries of knowing and sexing women. I think, Krauser is one, who's a dark triad, but who recently became more "battling, rather than avoiding". Tom Torero is a narcissistic personality, who's become more aware of his weaknesses (he frequently calls himself "ugly, but still getting the lays, more than a chode", forgetting that he's like top 1-2% IQ percentile, due to his PhD at Oxford, which is like from SMV 10 level). Mystery is also dark triad, I think...

The point is - "sufficient results" (which is like 1-2 lays a month or more) is fucking demanding: psychologically, emotionally, time-wise. With higher difficulties for lower SMVs. With even more demand for intelligence. Which might explain why nerds-gone-player is so typical story - daygame learning is a knowledge learning and application activity (easier/faster to do with higher IQ levels, which is a metric determining fluid intelligence). Yeah. Motivation coming from a dark triad is absolutely necessary to master daygame (again, not merely to achieve some semi-intermediate or beginner stage to get some average girl to marry)!

So what is this theory doing with my situation? I think, I am dark triad, for certain. At least, on a narcissistic spectrum I might be medium to high. Some psychopathic tendencies as well of emotional disconnectedness. Machiavellism isn't bad at all (it's more like an instrument), but I have a certain understanding of the tactics and strategies on how to achieve my goals. Which means two things: (1) I have inner demons and inclinations to attain "sufficient results", and (2) I am on "avoidant" or "battling" path. I've been more like "freeze" before, where I am narcissistic and frozen in this state (i.e., lack of inward and outward confidence). Now, I am more outward confident (peacocking exercises and being "funny and cocky" helps in developing narcissism, which may be useful, I think - at least, in terms of understanding how to present yourself better, i.e., sell yourself better to the girl). Due to the inner game improvements, I am also more inward confident. But - and here's the most important point of this whole essay - inherently, I am still somewhat dark triad. I may be prone to being more "good" (I really don't like violence and damaging behaviour just for its own sake, even though I can cause some). But there's still that part. So, I suspect that even in the relationship, such as this one, this "dark triad" impulse is unlikely to dissolute completely. No, not at all. And as such - here's the question for me: "if I am to study women and daygame, then how do I do so, given this ever-present inherent dark triad tendency of mine?" Because, this would be emerging all in street approaches, on the dates, in sex, and in the relationships.

For example, this girl, when she first-time rejected me - I've felt this inherent feeling of "ok, how do I get to daygame, so that I am sexually covered and satisfied, and not overly-dependent on the sex supplied by this specific girl". It's fucking psychopathic and narcissistic. But it's there. And so, I don't care that much about covering it, which is pointless anyway. If I were "avoidant", I would have turned someone like "I am a bad person for feeling so". Now, I am more "battling", and I am not going to compromise my character (at the very least, he awareness of my character) for the falsely constructed "moral code" of the society, which generally includes "Don't be a bad person, be a good person, be a moral person, do onto others as you would have like them to do onto thyself". These are not bad advices per se, but they are stated without the slightest understanding of why the fuck these advices came into being (like an axiom that must be maintained for the sake of preserving the relatively shitty stability of the society, without risking to make the society either very good or chaotically bad if one questions these axioms).

So yeah. This question generates many many more other interesting questions. Like, if you are a dark triad, you have the potential to study daygame, motivation to do so, but also want affection from the relationships - is it morally (I mean, at the highest Tao-like spiritual level) ok to sex harems of girls, like Allakh-abiding Sheiks do? How do you remain true to yourself and your power of being or not being emotionally present at your will, and being also spiritual, whilst living in a society full of teethless dorks? I mean, dark triad (especially, psychopathism) is inherently masculine (hence, more men are dark triad, than women), but - if used correctly. After all, a "typical high-quality alpha" (even in romantic movies) - is a "remorseless badboy, able to crush skulls and help kittens, if he feels the moral code to do so".

These are my ruminations on the topic. A bit abstract, but this is where inner game resides - in the psychological and philosophical abstractions, which generally lead to a construction of the principles, which are an absolute must for a man. The problem is, the path to these principles lie through the hell and meeting with one's own shadow. This may be uncomfortable to some "good law-abiding citizens" (take Greek philosophers, living in a barrel on the city square). But it's their fucking problem. So, today I shall think whether I go for a daygame session today (or the weekend), if this girl is busy. Her life, after all, and I have mine, including a sex drive, which I am tasked with satisfying, not anyone else.